Sunday, September 6, 2009
Jeff Ashton explains his GOTW judging methods
I'm too indecisive, and this took too long, but I think I have a good judging system down that IS PROVEN BY SCIENCE!
Overall I was looking for two things:
(a) Makes people like chess more. i.e. entertaining attack or creative play
(b) Good quality game (not too idiotic). Basically provides a cool "luckometer" trend analysis/Rybka infinite analysis tests.
Intuitive Rough Draft: Made a quick "feeling" order. Ranked them without too much thought. Malcolm Gladwell "Blink" style.
Used my super scientific simulations (PROVEN BY SCIENCE) and basically paired off games against other games using Swiss System. If they were roughly equally interesting, I'd give it a draw. Note, this is how I pick where I go to vacation and stuff. Usually this ends up matching my intuitive rough draft somewhat but kind of ends up in a tie in third place usually.
Note: I do use ONE "Wild-card" trick that makes this simulation slightly more randomized. I can explain more later if necessary. This is so all the people who are trying to CRACK MY CODE (scientifically proven formula) will not be able to.
Run them with Rybka 3 and look at the cool "luckometer" evaluation profile graphs. Pretty graphs = cool
Go back and think about my criteria again. Was it fun? Do I like chess more? What would Joe McDumbDumb think about this game? What would Boris McGoodPlayer think?
Usually end up going with pretty much my intuitive feeling and realizing some games that I thought were good, were actually kind of boring and lame.
Mess with the "sort" order of the database so it matches my rankings somewhat.
Luckometer graphs for my top six games from Week 1:
Ippolito vs Charbonneau
Zaremba vs Esserman
Perelshteyn vs Vovsha
Ramirez vs Mitkov
Kudrin vs Shabalov
Becerra vs Bartholomew
Please give me your feedback on my methods!