|
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
I noticed this weekend that this is the year of the prediction feature. Running it for KC, the self-check indicates it would have been 70% correct after only 39 matches, and consistently 80% correct after 48 matches. For Lunacy it does much worse. This seems to indicate that this game is much more predictable, and that good robots in one match will often do well in subsequent matches. Note that this is only for predicting the winner. So although it is better at predicting the winner of a match than last year, that's a less useful thing to do than it was last year.
Code:
After 10 matches, OPR would not have been computable
After 11 matches, OPR would not have been computable
After 12 matches, OPR would not have been computable
After 13 matches, OPR would not have been computable
After 14 matches, OPR would not have been computable
After 15 matches, OPR would not have been computable
After 16 matches, OPR would not have been computable
After 17 matches, OPR would not have been computable
After 18 matches, OPR would not have been computable
After 19 matches, OPR would not have been computable
With 20 matches of data, match prediction would have been 50% of the time
With 21 matches of data, match prediction would have been 56% of the time
With 22 matches of data, match prediction would have been 48% of the time
With 23 matches of data, match prediction would have been 63% of the time
With 24 matches of data, match prediction would have been 62% of the time
With 25 matches of data, match prediction would have been 55% of the time
With 26 matches of data, match prediction would have been 58% of the time
With 27 matches of data, match prediction would have been 50% of the time
With 28 matches of data, match prediction would have been 67% of the time
With 29 matches of data, match prediction would have been 50% of the time
With 30 matches of data, match prediction would have been 50% of the time
With 31 matches of data, match prediction would have been 52% of the time
With 32 matches of data, match prediction would have been 61% of the time
With 33 matches of data, match prediction would have been 69% of the time
With 34 matches of data, match prediction would have been 64% of the time
With 35 matches of data, match prediction would have been 60% of the time
With 36 matches of data, match prediction would have been 66% of the time
With 37 matches of data, match prediction would have been 66% of the time
With 38 matches of data, match prediction would have been 65% of the time
With 39 matches of data, match prediction would have been 71% of the time
With 40 matches of data, match prediction would have been 71% of the time
With 41 matches of data, match prediction would have been 77% of the time
With 42 matches of data, match prediction would have been 80% of the time
With 43 matches of data, match prediction would have been 75% of the time
With 44 matches of data, match prediction would have been 76% of the time
With 45 matches of data, match prediction would have been 74% of the time
With 46 matches of data, match prediction would have been 73% of the time
With 47 matches of data, match prediction would have been 75% of the time
With 48 matches of data, match prediction would have been 82% of the time
With 49 matches of data, match prediction would have been 80% of the time
With 50 matches of data, match prediction would have been 83% of the time
With 51 matches of data, match prediction would have been 87% of the time
With 52 matches of data, match prediction would have been 87% of the time
With 53 matches of data, match prediction would have been 78% of the time
With 54 matches of data, match prediction would have been 80% of the time
With 55 matches of data, match prediction would have been 77% of the time
With 56 matches of data, match prediction would have been 74% of the time
With 57 matches of data, match prediction would have been 73% of the time
With 58 matches of data, match prediction would have been 75% of the time
With 59 matches of data, match prediction would have been 75% of the time
With 60 matches of data, match prediction would have been 84% of the time
With 61 matches of data, match prediction would have been 81% of the time
With 62 matches of data, match prediction would have been 83% of the time
With 63 matches of data, match prediction would have been 80% of the time
With 64 matches of data, match prediction would have been 88% of the time
With 65 matches of data, match prediction would have been 88% of the time
With 66 matches of data, match prediction would have been 84% of the time
With 67 matches of data, match prediction would have been 81% of the time
With 68 matches of data, match prediction would have been 87% of the time
With 69 matches of data, match prediction would have been 86% of the time
With 70 matches of data, match prediction would have been 86% of the time
With 71 matches of data, match prediction would have been 85% of the time
With 72 matches of data, match prediction would have been 85% of the time
With 73 matches of data, match prediction would have been 84% of the time
With 74 matches of data, match prediction would have been 84% of the time
With 75 matches of data, match prediction would have been 83% of the time
With 76 matches of data, match prediction would have been 82% of the time
With 77 matches of data, match prediction would have been 81% of the time
With 78 matches of data, match prediction would have been 80% of the time
With 79 matches of data, match prediction would have been 80% of the time
With 80 matches of data, match prediction would have been 78% of the time
With 81 matches of data, match prediction would have been 77% of the time
With 82 matches of data, match prediction would have been 82% of the time
With 83 matches of data, match prediction would have been 81% of the time
With 84 matches of data, match prediction would have been 80% of the time
With 85 matches of data, match prediction would have been 78% of the time
With 86 matches of data, match prediction would have been 76% of the time
With 87 matches of data, match prediction would have been 75% of the time
With 88 matches of data, match prediction would have been 81% of the time
With 89 matches of data, match prediction would have been 80% of the time
With 90 matches of data, match prediction would have been 77% of the time
With 91 matches of data, match prediction would have been 87% of the time
With 92 matches of data, match prediction would have been 85% of the time
With 93 matches of data, match prediction would have been 83% of the time
With 94 matches of data, match prediction would have been 80% of the time
With 95 matches of data, match prediction would have been 100% of the time
With 96 matches of data, match prediction would have been 100% of the time
With 97 matches of data, match prediction would have been 100% of the time
With 98 matches of data, match prediction would have been 100% of the time
Last edited by Bongle : 22-03-2010 at 13:03.
|
There are simply not enough words to say how much the contributions of Dave and Woodie have given to FIRST, and countless students across the world. - Libby K [more] 
Robot Inspector
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Re: Easy to use Offensive Power Rankings (OPR) program for mid-regional scouting
Linear Mode
