Hi all,
Some data I went over today made me doubt whether GNU's luck-measure is valuable. A valuable measure should still leave ample room to the component of skill, and therfore be only party correlated with the actual results of games.
However, when I recorded and went over exaustive data arranged in a table, of 29 analysed money-games with the same opponent, I came by this finding: in all the games, yes, in 29 out of 29 games, the actual result and the relative luck-measures for the two parties went in the same direction!!
I should add: (1) This was always the case no matter if the difference between his luck and mine was big or small; (2) his computed total error rates added through all the games were 50% higher than mine in checker play (analysed by 2-ply Supremo), also 50% higher in cube decisions (analysed by 2-ply World Class) and 50% higher overall.
Then what about skill in backgammon? :) Should the luck-measures be modified, or could anybody give me satisfactory explanations for these finding, corroborate or disprove them?
Thanks a lot,
-- Adi