Does anyone else think that ranking good/bad IOS might need to be changed slightly to account for one second games?
For example, if someone finished say, a 3 3bv board in 1.999 seconds, and another person finished a 3 3bv board in 2.001 seconds, they would have IOS of -1098.063 and 1099.162 respectively. Tam Minh Bui's 1.1 on beginner would also have an IOS of around -0.301.
Shouldn't that mean that negative numbers with the lowest absolute values constitute the best IOS? Under the system as I understand it now, finishing a 4 3bv game in 1000 seconds has a better IOS than Thomas White's lucky solve (with IOS of 0.159 and -0.956 respectively).
If I am mistaken about the current ranking of good/bad IOS (higher number = better), please tell me.
P.S. Also, wouldn't changing IOS from log(3bv)/log(real time) to log(3bv)/log(time) solve the same problem?
IOS: interesting question
IOS: interesting question
High Scores: 1.859 + 14.25 + 58.13 = 74.239 (1.859 + 17.16 + 76.65 = 95.669 NF)
3bv/s High Scores: 5.63 + 3.88 + 2.86 = 12.37 (4.67 + 3.26 + 2.27 = 10.2 NF)
3bv/s High Scores: 5.63 + 3.88 + 2.86 = 12.37 (4.67 + 3.26 + 2.27 = 10.2 NF)
-
RonnyDeWinter
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:11 am
- Location: Netherlands
- Contact:
Re: IOS: interesting question
In general people never look at the IOS of beginner games, since we it has this 'dividing by zero' problem around board near 1s realtime. Also IOS tends to be in favor of high 3BV board, so I prefer to look at RQP, which seems to result in a more constant average with both high and low 3BV boards.