[blackshoe]

Percentage of what? At least it's clear (to me) that it's "percentage of the maximum possible score" and ranges, like the raw score, from zero to the maximum (100% in the case of percentage). It's not clear what "percentage" is in Sven's method.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-January-11, 10:55, said:

Percentage of what? At least it's clear (to me) that it's "percentage of the maximum possible score" and ranges, like the raw score, from zero to the maximum (100% in the case of percentage). It's not clear what "percentage" is in Sven's method.

Mine too.

Say that the number of tables is M.

Neuberg operates on MP scores in the range [0 .. 2*(M-1)] and Ascherman operates on MP scores in the range [-(M-1) .. +(M-1)]. As they both calculate percentages based on equally sized ranges their percentage values will also be equivalent.

I understand that there is also a different variant of Ascherman (so far unknown to me) where the MP scores is obtained by just increasing the corresponding Neuberg scores by 1, i.e into the range [1 .. (2*M)-1]. However this variant includes an unobtainable bottom and an equally unobtainable top for a nominal range [0 .. 2*M] on which all percentaqges are caclculated.

I haven't bother to investigate this variant and don't really know the purpose, but one consequence is immediately obvious: The effective percentages range is no longer [0% .. 100%] but slightly narrower, resulting in all percentage values (except 50%) being "compressed" towards 50%.

Introducing this variant in the discussion which (as it appears to me) gordontd did (conciously or unconciously) caused my remark of comparing apples and oranges.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-January-11, 15:59, said:

As they both calculate percentages based on equally sized ranges their percentage values will also be equivalent.

Okay, I get that. I think what confused me is that the raw scores are expressed as a ± from 0, but I guess the percentages are expressed as 50%± (score/2*(M-1)). in Europe, anyway. I'm too tired to work out how the smaller size of our scoring units (half yours) affects the calculation, although it isn't hard. Or wouldn't be if I didn't have a cat bitching in my ear right now.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2015-January-11, 15:59, said:

Introducing this variant in the discussion which (as it appears to me) gordontd did (conciously or unconciously) caused my remark of comparing apples and oranges.

I brought it into the discussion because it's the method created by Wim Ascherman and is what readers would find if they tried to find out more about "Ascherman". By calling your variant of Neuberg "Ascherman", you created confusion and claimed that two things were identical when they were not.

None of this is to detract from your method, which as I have said above I think is very neat.

[pran]

gordontd, on 2015-January-12, 01:21, said:

I brought it into the discussion because it's the method created by Wim Ascherman and is what readers would find if they tried to find out more about "Ascherman". By calling your variant of Neuberg "Ascherman", you created confusion and claimed that two things were identical when they were not.

None of this is to detract from your method, which as I have said above I think is very neat.

Fair enough.

Only "my Method" was named Ascherman when I first heard about it, and what now appears to be the original Ascherman was completely unknown to me until I heard about it during this discussion.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2015-January-12, 02:14, said:

Fair enough.

Only "my Method" was named Ascherman when I first heard about it, and what now appears to be the original Ascherman was completely unknown to me until I heard about it during this discussion.

It's amazing how much we know that just ain't so. :-)

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2015-January-12, 10:27, said:

It's amazing how much we know that just ain't so. :-)

Listen to Sportin' Life in Porgy and Bess!