Received: by 10.68.242.68 with SMTP id wo4mr9131194pbc.1.1351456408656;
        Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.131.8 with SMTP id oi8mr774950pbb.15.1351456408636; Sun, 28
 Oct 2012 13:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 6ni32220pbd.1!nntp.google.com!kr7no16358726pbb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=72.160.32.40; posting-account=ZoOzZggAAADKiZinXeenHF1SgY613agP
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.160.32.40
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <15296d63-25b7-49cf-9ad4-08c028b28db9@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Any worldclass achievers with bad "error rates"?
From: mu...@compuplus.net
Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:33:28 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Searching on the Internet, I see that various efforts
are being made to come up with a list of top players,
based on various criteria. I also see that a great
importance is given to bot measured error rates by
some people.

What I would like to know is if there are reliable
and significant data to show how much correspondence
there is between top achievement and bot error rates.

Since there are no backgammon Olympics for amateur
players, and since apparently all gamblers live in a
concocted world of their own, striving to play just
like the bots, any data will necessarily be grossly
skewed.

But occasionally there must be some players with poor
bot error rates, who may be considered to have won
undeservedly by the "consensus", no?

Surely, others must have asked this question before
but I wasn't able to find any data or discussion on
the subject. Any leads would be appreciated.

MK