> > Interesting results, I'm curious, how good are the recorded games?
> > Thinks like average rank of say the weakest 10% of the players would
> > be interesting. (I assume these were human players, right?).
>
> I got them from Nici Schraudolph, who would have to make any such
> comments.
The games were not selected according to player strength, so you get
whatever IGS (the source) had to offer. The selection criteria were 9x9,
no handicap, and recorded territory. To select only games between good
players you'd need a larger pool of games, which means going to 19x19 and
"bootstrapping" final territory, e.g. via gnugo as suggested here.
I am attaching a histogram of player strength for the games in question,
translating IGS ratings as NR = 0, 31k = 1, 30k = 2, ... 1k = 31, 1d =
32, ... 9d = 40, 1p = 41, ... 9p = 49. Predictably, you have a large
number of NRs and 30ks, a fair number of ~12ks, and some better players.
I'd consider these ranks a lower bound on actual player strength, since
IGS regulars are bound to create an unranked/low-ranked login on the
side for things such as playing a 9x9, in order to avoid messing up
their main rating.
Best wishes,
- Nici.
--
Dr. Nicol N. Schraudolph http://n.schraudolph.org/
Steinwiesstr. 32 mobile: +41-76-585-3877
CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland tel: -1-251-3661
Attachment:
xgraph.pdf
Description: histogram