A question about handicaps

illluck · **#41**

Yeah, I guess it's personal preference. I've found playing significantly weaker opponents (say, 5+ stones difference) without handicap to be sometimes boring if the game lasts too long.

Regarding the comment about always having at least a chance, I'd expect that the experience will not transfer to Go as easily (I suspect you probably already have some experience with that since you are 6k) - as Uberdude and others have stated, the strength range (in terms of number of strength differences that will result in, say, 90% winning chances for the stronger player) is much wider for Go.

ez4u · **#42**

NinG wrote:

I just think it is kind of a personal thing if you like the system or not. Saying "you have to make handicap games, otherwise no one is having fun" doesn't convince me at all.

For example, when I played chess tournaments, I always looked forward to the games against stronger players, sometimes way stronger players. Those were the games I prepared hours if not days for, and those were the games I got the biggest motivation from. And because of the preparation and the huge motivation, I somehow played way better than normally. I always had at least a chance.

But it would kinda ruin it for me, if I received handicap. Because then I wouldn't try as hard as I normally would. I would go into the game saying "Oh well, it's 50-50 anyway" instead of "Alright, he is stronger than me, but I can do it, if I try my best! I have a chance!" And after the game, I would be a lot more motivated to become better and maintain that kind of skill level I showed against the strong opponent.

I'm trying to say, for me, it would probably get less competitive and less motivational to play a handicap game than to play a normal game, where chances are high that I lose. And that's exactly the opposite of what it's supposed to do.

But as I said, I think that's a personal thing. I've played a number of competitive games and sports so for me the idea of giving handicap to a weaker player just doesn't sound right.

However, it's not that I totally hate the handicap system. It does make sense somehow, at least for the weaker players in a tournament-field. It's just different from what I'm used to.

Isn't the point (made several times above), that the reason for handi's is to make the game interesting for both players? How much did you prepare for your games against much weaker players and how interesting did you find those games?

A constant issue in the ASR league is that weaker players find the mismatched games more interesting than the stronger players do. So the weaker players are against changes that will increase the stratification of the league based on strength while the stronger players are in favor.

The other game that I am familiar with that typically employs handicaps is golf. Of course there are amateur tournaments played without handicaps, but I dare say that the majority of club events are handicap. They are not for the purpose of finding the best player.

RobertJasiek · **#43**

shapenaji, what defines, what you call, accurate ratings? How accurate? 1 rating point difference? What distinguishes accurate from not accurate? Why a one-dimensional value?

shapenaji · **#44**

RobertJasiek wrote:

shapenaji, what defines, what you call, accurate ratings? How accurate? 1 rating point difference? What distinguishes accurate from not accurate? Why a one-dimensional value?

Ratings are an indicator of performance. If I am unable to update ratings because of the nature of the tournament, then they are a poor indicator of performance, and probably "inaccurate".

Do we really need to have this semantic argument?

Boidhre · **#45**

ez4u wrote:

A constant issue in the ASR league is that weaker players find the mismatched games more interesting than the stronger players do. So the weaker players are against changes that will increase the stratification of the league based on strength while the stronger players are in favor.

I would agree Delta is pretty unfair on the stronger players in it unless they get a real kick out of teaching games.

RobertJasiek · **#46**

shapenaji wrote:

Do we really need to have this semantic argument?

It is not about linguistics but about your claim of ratings being accurate. I claim: Ratings are close to the opposite of accuracy. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that ratings would be accurate. What, IYO, makes them "accurate"?

EDIT:

To start with something simple: Rating numbers (as currently used) are linear. This does not model

A regularly beats B regularly beats C regularly beats A.

Since the ratings do not model reality, they are not accurate.

Quote:

Ratings are an indicator of performance.

Yes, but this says nothing about (missing) accuracy.

Quote:

If I am unable to update ratings because of the nature of the tournament, then they are a poor indicator of performance, and probably "inaccurate".

Of course, missing data invalidate accuracy, but this is not what I am asking for. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that ratings are updated well and regularly.

SpongeBob · **#47**

Fulan wrote:

I come from a competitive culture that severely looks down upon any rule of mechanic that aids the weaker player and attempts to level the playing field.

Which culture is that, if I may ask?

Fulan · **#48**

SpongeBob wrote:

Fulan wrote:

I come from a competitive culture that severely looks down upon any rule of mechanic that aids the weaker player and attempts to level the playing field.

Which culture is that, if I may ask?

The fighting game community. Though like I said on page2 the mentality has been shifting since the more recent games have blatant comeback mechanics to cater to the newer generation of weak minded video game players.

hyperpape · **#49**

Fulan wrote:

The fighting game community. Though like I said on page2 the mentality has been shifting since the more recent games have blatant comeback mechanics to cater to the newer generation of weak minded video game players.

I'm weak at fighting games (last one I played was Soul Caliber 2 and Tekken 2 before that--and I was only ok at them), but I'm not weak minded, good sir.

luigi · **#50**

I'm not a good Go player and have never played in a tournament, but I'd say (rather ingenuously I fear) that handicap games and competitiveness are compatible. Here's my reasoning:

Consider a hypothetical round robin tournament where all games are played with full handicap, so every player is expected to win and lose the same number of games. At the end of the tournament, the official ranks of all players are recalculated according to the results of the played games, and the player with the highest new rank wins. For the purpose of determining the winner, fractional ranks (like 8.34 dan) will be used.

Let's say there are 9 participants with correlative ranks from 1d to 9d and every player is awarded 0.25 ranks for every win and punished by the same amount for every loss (this is just an assumption; the proper amount will surely be different). In this case, the 1d player winning all his 8 games will have his rating increased by 2 ranks, which seems roughly apropriate. He won't possibly win the tournament, but will have the prize of seeing his rank increased for future tournaments, and justly so I think.

With this hypothetical system, weaker players aren't given any unfair compensation despite the handicap, and the best player is as likely to be the winner in the end as if no handicaps were used. At the same time, all players have something to fight for, and there are no mismatches.

As I said, I'm far from expert, but I'm curious about this issue. Am I talking nonsense here? Has this been tried anywhere?

Sverre · **#51**

luigi wrote:

As I said, I'm far from expert, but I'm curious about this issue. Am I talking nonsense here? Has this been tried anywhere?

I don't like your system because it seems like it would be unfair between players close in rating. Lets say the two top players are 4.31 and 4.33 dan. In effect, they play every game as the same rank, but the 4.33 dan wins ties. I don't feel the rating at the start of a tournament is a fair tiebreaker, but for determining rating of course the previous rating must be taken into account.

On the other end of the scale, in a McMahon tournament a 2 dan entering the tournament (supposing the bar is set at 1 or 2 dan) may have the odds against him, but if he gets lucky and beats the 4 dans he may well win the tournament. Under your system not only does he need to win his games, he also depends on the 4 dans losing a lot.

Essentially I feel that the rating system should depend on history, while the outcome of the tournament should depend as little as possible on pre-tournament history, which is why I don't think you should mix these two systems too much.

Fulan · **#52**

hyperpape wrote:

Fulan wrote:

The fighting game community. Though like I said on page2 the mentality has been shifting since the more recent games have blatant comeback mechanics to cater to the newer generation of weak minded video game players.

I'm weak at fighting games (last one I played was Soul Caliber 2 and Tekken 2 before that--and I was only ok at them), but I'm not weak minded, good sir.

That's why i specified weak minded and didn't just say weak players. I realize it's not the same thing.

It's undeniable that games have gotten much easier over the years.

A question about handicaps

Who is online