Posts:
542
Registered:
May 9, 2002
From:
Northeast USA
Re: DSG Ratings -- Fact and Fiction
Posted:
Feb 2, 2004, 7:16 PM
This code looks correct. Any time an established player wins, his rating will increase independent of whether his provisional opponent gained or lost points.
I can only assume that anyone that saw their rating decrease after winning a game was still a provisional player.
Posts:
54
Registered:
Feb 21, 2003
From:
Hawaii Home page
Re: DSG Ratings -- Fact and Fiction
Posted:
Feb 2, 2004, 7:34 PM
Yeah, I believe that the time mine went up after a loss was when I played zach212. He & I were both provisional at the time.
Dweebo, perhaps you could change the code for two provisional opponents so that their ratings don't change in the wrong direction even if you calculate that they 'should'. They could just remain unchanged in that case. I don't think doing that would have major impact overall and it would eliminate a lot of confusion over the whole issue.
Posts:
54
Registered:
Feb 21, 2003
From:
Hawaii Home page
Re: DSG Ratings -- Fact and Fiction
Posted:
Feb 3, 2004, 7:26 AM
up2ng,
Using sets, what do you do if we are playing and we only finish one game? Let's say I get a phone call that I have to take or my son needs my attention or whatever and we can't complete the second game. Obviously the completed game should be scored, but how?
Or often, the winner keeps the table, so I might play several games without completing any sets. How would we score that situation?
Posts:
542
Registered:
May 9, 2002
From:
Northeast USA
Re: DSG Ratings -- Fact and Fiction
Posted:
Feb 3, 2004, 8:45 AM
Hey Thad,
Yes, this is definitely a concern -- the logistics would have to be ironed out, and I hope to hear many suggestions, either about my "set based" solution or about any other solution.
The way I envision it, lots of game room code would be changed, or added to "enforce" a set based environment. I think one good compromise I have heard suggested before would be to leave things as they are for unrated games, since they are unrated anyway.
However, for rated games, if the game room is modified to incorporate set-based play, your concern is certainly an issue. Since I'm proposing that tied sets should leave both players' ratings unchanged, it would be a serious loophole if players could just disconnect from the game room and bolt if they lose the first game in the set (as player 1 for example) and preserve ratings points by allowing this "unfinished match" to just be counted as a tie.
Two solutions spring to mind. First, there could be some option to "postpone game". Information would be stored someplace that remembers who was playing who, in what seats, and what the outcome of the first game in the set was. In my opinion, this is a BAD solution for so many reasons that I will not even get into it here.
What I propose instead is that you simply MUST finish the set. At least for rated games, there would no longer be any such thing as a "game", only a "set". Currently, if you are in the middle of a game, let's say 6 or 8 moves are played with no clear advantage -- and you just abruptly disconnect from the game to take a business call, etc, well -- currently your opponent gets that dialog box and may resign, cancel, or force resignation. When you start a 20/0 game, you are committed for 40 minutes. If you bail out (you could always just hit the resign button yourself, or request a cancel game) you are subject to possibly forfeiting the game and some of your points.
Well, the exact same principles would apply for sets. Under the proposed "set-based" system, when you start your match you are "committed" for a certain length of time. If you bail out, you are bailing out of the set, not just the game, so it's not really the completed game that will be scored as you have asked, but instead the set MAY end up being scored. I say "MAY" because I think that the opponent should still receive a similar dialog box with the familiar options. In this dialog box, as well as in the game room, some additional buttons would be added. In the game room, there would be a "Cancel Set" button which replaces the Cancel button, a "Resign Game" button, which replaces the Resign button, and an additional "Resign Set" button (to be used sparingly), which would probably have an additional "are you sure...?" type pop-up. The Disconnected Player Dialog would have a "Resign Set" button, a "Cancel Set" button, and a "Force Resignation of Set" button. Granted, the accepted 'rules of ettiquette' would get a little more complicated -- for example, it would be encouraged that you simply cancel if you had won your first game as player 1, unless you already were SURE that you had a CLEAR win in your second game as player 2, etc, etc, etc. Also, even the mechanics may become slightly more complex and intimidating for new players and perhaps a "Help" button or link would be appropriate right from the game room for a very brief explanation of sets, the buttons, ettiquette, etc.
In terms of the "winner play on" convention, this is no problem at all, you simply must win the set instead of one game -- and if you tie you have to work that out amongst yourselves at the table.
Just to be clear -- the software in the game room would be altered significantly. You would essentially be "locked in" until you complete the set, so there will really be no question. After the first game of the set is completed, a quick pop-up dialog would appear to the players with a "Switch Seats" button. There would probably have to be a timer for how long it takes you to hit "Switch Seats" followed by "Play" else the Disconnected Dialog would pop up -- this to prevent sore losers from delaying indefinitely the second game. Or perhaps the switch/play would occur automatically. Yet another option might be to have an additional button/control which "request 5 minute break" or "request X minute break" or whatever. The software design would have to be thought out, but it WOULD change so that it just "feels" right to be playing sets -- individual games would just cease to exist.
I hope all this helps -- if anyone has any additional questions about this set based approach please ask!
i coudn't disagree more. if the current system is changed, anyone could do the following:
play first game against a 1800 player, win, and get a 2000 rating (or whatever it would be). then this player could play 19 games against a 600 rated player, without losing any rating points. this is absurd. one should not bbe able to establish himself as a 2000 player by beating players rated 600. Having the ratings drop when provisional requires people to at least stay within 400, which is already pretty generous. as it is, anyone can easily get a nnew acciount with a 2000 rating, but let's not make that any easier than it is already.
a opssible solution would be to keep the rating drop if winning to a player 400 or more below you, but eliminate the ratings gain when losing to a plyer 400 above.
brain king made the mistake of not allowing rating to drop after a win -- comnsequently, new players easiloy get 2500 ratings without beating anyone good, then it takes weeks or loger for the rating to drop to its proper level. some never do. as a result. the ratings at brain king are completely screwed up.
If I do not accept a game invite right away, it means I will once I have fewer games in progress.
Posts:
54
Registered:
Feb 21, 2003
From:
Hawaii Home page
Re: no no no no no no
Posted:
Feb 3, 2004, 7:17 PM
Good point, Dmitri, but, I don't think I player's score should drop following a win. That just doesn't make sense!!
The real problem isn't the next 19 games, it's the score after that first one. A limit should be put in so that a provisional player's score cannot jump more than a few points ahead of anyone (s)he beats. Perhaps use a limit of 32 points, since that's the max difference in changes of scores between established players score changes. Or use one point for each previously completed game. That would solve the problem. Then your scenario becomes:
A new player beats an 1800 player and gets a ranking of 1832, plays 19 more games against 600 players, wins them all, loses no points and still sits at 1832. That still isn't perfect, but it seems like a good enough system.
Re: no no no no no no
Posted:
Feb 3, 2004, 7:51 PM
THAD : "Good point, Dmitri, but, I don't think I player's score should drop following a win. That just doesn't make sense!!"
i thought i gave a clear explanation for why it makes sense.
THAD : "A new player beats an 1800 player and gets a ranking of 1832, plays 19 more games against 600 players, wins them all, loses no points and still sits at 1832. That still isn't perfect, but it seems like a good enough system."
how is that a good system? it has the exact same problem i just mentioned in my last post. beating a 600 rated player 19 times should not establish one as a 1832 player.
If I do not accept a game invite right away, it means I will once I have fewer games in progress.
Posts:
54
Registered:
Feb 21, 2003
From:
Hawaii Home page
Re: no no no no no no
Posted:
Feb 3, 2004, 8:23 PM
> how is that a good system?
It's a better system than any other proposed so far. And it does not have the same problem as the one you mentioned. In your scenario, a player established himself with a 2000 rating with only one decent win. In mine, he established himself with an 1832 rating, which is certainly more acurate.
If you don't think a player with one win over a player rated at 1800 and 19 more against weak players should be rated a little over 1800, then what rating should he have (and why)?
Re: no no no no no no
Posted:
Feb 3, 2004, 10:22 PM
ok, you're not getting what i am saying, i'll try a different approach.
to answer this question: "If you don't think a player with one win over a player rated at 1800 and 19 more against weak players should be rated a little over 1800, then what rating should he have (and why)?"
abnswer: the rating shold be whatever the formula says. why? i thought i made that clear. an established player has to split with 1800 rated players to stay at 1800. a provisional player should have to play people at his level in order to establish himself as an 1800 player. there is nothing wrong with the current system. your only argument is that "it just sdoesn't make sense!" which you do not support with any reasons. you are missing the point of the provisional period, its purpose is to
ACCURATELY REPRESENT A PLAYER'S ABILITY!!!
a provisional player should try to play people at his level. if instead the provisional player decides to beat up on weaker players hew knows full well he can beat, then he deserves a ratings drop. but it should come as no surprise that you are defending a system that rewards behavior, because i do believe that you decided to follow up your winning section B lat time by signing up for....... section B! again! isn't that like trying to win MVP of the minor leagues a second time inastead of going to the big leagues?
If I do not accept a game invite right away, it means I will once I have fewer games in progress.
Posts:
54
Registered:
Feb 21, 2003
From:
Hawaii Home page
Re: no no no no no no
Posted:
Feb 3, 2004, 10:44 PM
The current formula is flawed! I played a game, lost, and my rating went UP. That should not happen. Think about it, if we had continued to play, and I continued to lose, my rating would continue to go up. That makes no sense. Also, my opponent continues to win and his rating only goes down. That does not make sense either.
Another negative side affect of the current system is that it discourages provisional players with great ratings differences from plying one another, after all, why play if your rating can only get worse, win or lose?
The problem is that the current formula over-rewards a new player when he beats a player rated much higher than he is. That is what needs to be corrected.
Re: no no no no no no
Posted:
Feb 3, 2004, 10:57 PM
<<<<<< The problem is that the current formula over-rewards a new player when he beats a player rated much higher than he is. That is what needs to be corrected.
>>>>>>>>>
I agree. simple solution: Your rating can go down after a win, if you are provisional and the opponent is 400 pts below you. But you cannot lose and go up, even if the opponent is 400 above you.
If I do not accept a game invite right away, it means I will once I have fewer games in progress.
Posts:
39
Registered:
Dec 16, 2001
From:
~THE BACK WOODS~
Re: DSG Ratings -- Fact and Fiction
Posted:
Feb 4, 2004, 3:07 AM
Greetings
I would like to comment on the idea of having to play a full set before any rating changes take effect.
I personally would love to see something like this happen, but would like to see it implemented as an option. If it were to be a table option, then anyone who opposes the idea should not have any real serious problems with it.
I don’t think that there would be any need to add any other buttons to the table other than one for the option to select a set match. On the other hand, perhaps it could just be added to the drop down list that is already there for the different game variants. The resign button would then just bring up the normal pop-up, but would have the options to resign the game that you are currently playing, or the entire match. If for some reason a player tries to exit the table after playing just one game in a 2-set match, then the same pop-up that normally appears when trying to exit a normal game would be displayed. On that note, it is always a good idea to make sure your opponent is fully aware of any changes you may have made to the table altering any default setting, i.e. timer changes, game variants, etc. In addition, I think that if this option is added for Pente, then it should also be added for all the other variants as well.
Again, I would love to see set play be an option, because I truly feel there are a lot of us who would prefer this to be the standard.
I also think that there need not be any further code changes to the rating system for set matches. If you win the set, then your ratings would be adjusted the same as if you would have played just one game and as NG said, “tied sets should leave both players' ratings unchanged”.
Posts:
542
Registered:
May 9, 2002
From:
Northeast USA
Re: DSG Ratings -- Fact and Fiction
Posted:
Feb 4, 2004, 3:35 AM
V,
I'm glad someone different has chimed in! Thanks for the input. I can certainly understand the rationelle for wanting to keep the current system while making set based play an "option".
However, in all honesty, I really feel that 'consistency' is vitally important to any rating system. So much so that I would actually prefer to see no change at all than to see some people having their ratings modified one way and other people having their ratings modified another way.
But fear not! I have already suggested having set based play be an "option". In fact, the control already exists. It's the "rated" checkbox. If you want to play rated, you play sets. If you don't want to play sets, you can always play unrated, which I've suggested be left just the way it is.
I will not touch the ratings code for this change.