Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
I don't think it follows that how much they win = how good they are. We can measure wins easily, but we factor other things into our assessment of goodness.
Given that the original rules seemed to count the ability to balance the co-opertition bridge as a good thing, I have to disagree with the premise of your argument.
If you use wins as a proxy for goodness, you should expect error because you're neglecting other factors. But that error isn't noise in the conventional sense—it's a collection of unidentified explanatory variables.
|
Every robot is built to try to win matches in its respective game. Even though there are other factors involved (such as your partners and opponents) I think that how many matches you win overall during the season is still a fairly good indicator of how "good" your robot is. It's not perfect, but its the metric used by competitions everywhere. It is, in any case, a better way to determine robot rank at a competition then the co-op bridge is. So no, it is not the only or best metric to determine how "good" a robot is. Additionally, I believe that my use of "good" has been slightly misunderstood because it is such a vague term. I eariler used "good" to describe how high a robot would seed. While I can't think of a better term, that is probably a poor choice of words for the reasons you described. I hope I explained myself well enough.
Regards, Bryan