Re: Color next to our player name
Posted:
May 24, 2018, 11:03 PM
It has crossed my mind, but as valleyboy notices, the range from 1900 - 2800 (currently) would need either further segmenting and/or the current segmentation would need their boundaries changed. It has crossed my mind frequently but I haven't come to a satisfying solution, considering that live and turn-based play turn out very different when it comes to the spread of players' ratings.
But by all means, if you have thoughts on the subject, I'm listening.
Re: Color next to our player name
Posted:
May 25, 2018, 12:51 AM
two new classes, top is royal color, which might as well be infra red, i sure cant see that high i not sure there are enough live games played anymore to worry about the separate category
Re: Color next to our player name
Posted:
May 25, 2018, 11:04 PM
I got tired of looking at forums for history of colored ratings, so...
The ratings (for DSG and thus Pente.org) seem to have started about the second week of April 2002. Who knows when the colors started.
1000-1399 range of 399 green 1400-1699 range of 299 blue 1700-1899 range of 199 yellow 1900+ red seemed logical at the time.
By my count there are now (5/25/2018) 30 active players above 1900. (no I'm not one of them). I doubt there were 30 active players back in 2002.
If you look at a player rankings list for TB Pente, you must go to the second page to find anybody that is not red.
I think maybe a top 10 or 15 might need their own color. Gives them a little extra prestige. Gives me a next level to challenge without choosing someone 400 ranking points higher.
Hopefully someone can correct my history and maybe offer other opinions.
Re: Color next to our player name
Posted:
May 26, 2018, 6:36 PM
"I doubt there were 30 active players back in 2002." Tournament three, which was held in 2002, had 50 entrants. I'd say although I wasn't extremely active here that year that at least during several months during the second half of the year I was also an active player here (but not involved in tournament three). Tournament 4, which finished 15 years ago today (time flies!) had A and B sections for players of different ratings and had 24 and 32 entrants respectively. As far as changing the ratings colors goes, Virag, the winner of tournament three stopped playing here in July of 2003 with a rating of 2089, which during the era of ratings which changed with each game played was roughly considered to be about as high as a rating could get here, since players with 1800+ ratings were all good enough to win the majority of their games as first player against anyone on the site. So, there was no need then for anything above red.
Message was edited by: watsu at May 26, 2018 6:54 PM
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
Re: Color next to our player name
Posted:
Apr 9, 2019, 12:07 AM
My proposed division of rating classes, at least for turn-based pente:
2400+: maroon or royal purple 2200-2400: red 2000-2200: orange 1800-2000: yellow 1500-1800: blue 1200-1500: green 1200-: gray
This corresponds in chess to roughly international master, national master, expert, class A player, typical club player, etc.
If that's too fine a division, then possibly
2300+: red 2100-2300: orange 1900-2100: yellow 1600-1900: blue 1200-1600: green 1200-: gray
Most people keep their color or shift to a slightly different shade. Until we implement a system such as this one, sending out a seek by rating class is practically meaningless.
It's no use going back to yesterday, because I was a different person then.
Posts:
64
Registered:
Jan 20, 2019
From:
Salem Oregon
Age:
48 Home page
Re: Color next to our player name
Posted:
Apr 9, 2019, 1:18 PM
I pretty much agree with karlw on the need for new classes and how they should be split up. I'd replace the "1500" with "1600" to keep the divisions at 200 pts per until we get to 1200-1600 where it's 400. That's a minor quibble.
Also though, it's my understanding that site-wide we require sets to offset the perceived advantage of P1. Statistically though, at least in turn-based, the P1 advantage is below that of chess until the 2200-2300 range (with the current inflated ratings).
This observation leads to a couple thoughts. First, there's actually no need for sets until the 2000-2200 level. No, I'm not advocating getting rid of them, they're just not necessary until one learns a solid P1 game. It would be perfectly tenable to have sets only in Master and above play though.
Second, the source of the incredible ratings inflation here is that the majority of the games are unrated as split sets are not rated. This is wrong...ethically, statistically, and certainly in any Elo based rating system.
Just as the rating of draws is important in Elo's chess system, the rating of drawn sets is important here. It might not surprise folks, but I have Elo's book on his rating system in my chess library...
By not rating draws, the system is biased towards higher rated players who unnaturally conserve ratings points when beaten on the board. If a lower rated person splits a set with me, they should gain points for it. P1, P2....doesn't matter.. Having sets at all is enough of a safety net for the higher rated.
Yes, I've read through the forums extensively and talked this over with rainwolf and watsu. The arguments for not rating drawn sets all fall flat, especially having read a bit about the systems in question.
Sure, ratings will go down for the higher rated at least until the system stabilizes,..but it will stabilize and it's not stable now. The rating ceiling has essentially moved from 2000 to 3000 in way too few years of play with a relatively small group of active players.
My nickel...(two cents under unchecked inflation...)
Re: Color next to our player name
Posted:
Apr 9, 2019, 4:43 PM
Obviously (since this ground was covered in detail before and after ratings were changed to sets) we could go around and around on the question of whether or not a split set should benefit the lower rated player and penalize the higher rated player. All I'm going to say (probably yet again) is that pretty much all the P1 answers are in the database for any subscriber who knows where and how to look for them. Would I play lower rated subscribers rated turn based sets if I were penalized for splits? Doubtful, at least to the degree which I valued my rating. Is the trade off to combat inflation worth the price of ratings protection? Not in my opinion. Since I barely play rated Pente sets anymore, it's a bit moot. But, I was reluctant to play Karlw due to the effort involved in me not losing rating points as the system stands - because I know where his actual rating lies in the spectrum. How much more reluctant would I be if I were penalized for splitting with him? ETA - re: rating protection Yes, it also exists in swap pente games played as single games and in gomoku when there is no rating distinction made between swap games and those which aren't - and it's not just at the top level. I also protect my 19xx gomoku rating at another site by only playing swap games and not playing games against known under rated players. This, despite the fact that my 19xx rating is about 1K below the best. And, my strategy to advance in Pente ratings at another site is to challenge the highest rated players to sets, primarily relying on the first player advantage to raise me up more than the second player disadvantage takes me down when playing higher rated players, even though I can easily beat lower rated players there as Player 2, as my 13-2 record there shows. And top players from this site can't even get swap Pente games from top rated players at another site, presumably due to rating protection issues. Which, I think is bad for the game and I'd prefer to see less of it, not more....
Message was edited by: watsu at Apr 9, 2019 5:44 PM
Retired from TB Pente, but still playing live games & exploring variants like D, poof and boat
