No. I want that the rating system acknowledges my change from a non-serious period to a serious period within ca. 100 successive games (69 wins : 31 losses) instead of ca. 400 successive games (276 wins : 124 losses).



No.



No. By far not the ONLY.

E.g., the system can be made 4 (reason see above) times as volatile for frequently playing players, while keeping (or reducing) volatility for the rarely playing players, with reasonable degrees in between.

Server ratings are no more meant to model your over the board strength than the EGF system is meant to model your online strength. I cannot understand the issue, if you're not playing as well on KGS as in over-the-board tournaments, why should your online rating be higher than your performance merits?

Ego

I wonder how many people have multiple accounts on KGS, and what does that do to a predictive ranking system, and would people playing a secondary weaker account be considered sand baggers?

As long as each account is playing to win every game (e.g. you aren't intentionally losing games to your stronger account with your weaker account), it's a non-issue.

Not higher, but as low or high. A rating that does not reflect high winning percentages (during successive weeks) properly does not measure performance properly. Instead, KGS measures EARLIER performance (history) too much for frequently playing players.

As the previous thread showed, in the last 8 years your 100 game moving average win rate has only been 70% on four occasions. On all of them you got promoted. Your claims of 400 game requirements are utter nonsense.

Elsewhere you can read the figures why an order of magnitude of 400 is the reality. It depends on how frequent a frequent player plays and on where his rating was when he started. IIRC, I needed to play over 300 successive serious games to improve less than 1/3 of a rank to reach 5d again. For a full rank, many more games would be needed. (If you want to see the exact numbers, you need to search. Currently I lack time to dig out them.)

Yes, but you omitted an important detail: The reason it took 300 games is because you weren't winning them. If you have a win rate <.66 you shouldn't be expecting to promote.

IIRC, the win rate was ca. 70%, anyway enough to improve a rank, because I WAS promoted a rank.

And so, what is the problem?

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

Then what you are recalling is a 100 game period, not a 300 game period. Your 100 game moving average win rate across your entire kgs career was posted...why on earth do you think you can keep making up stories that never happened?

Explanation see before.



Do a proper web search, and you will find what has happened NOT for just 100 games.

Why would I do a web search when I (and others) have your entire win/loss history on KGS pulled into a spreadsheet?

CSV file actually. This morning I wanted to find out how to do moving averages with R (then I realised I had before but I tend to forget stuff) and re-did ez4u's moving averages plot. The win rate never raises that much, and when it does, coincides with rank jumps. There are also apparent a lot of streaks of sub-optimal play.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

Ok, again - fair enough. This is what you want.

I still don't see why 100 is a better number than 400, and why wouldn't you then complain that you want the change to take place within 50 or 20 games, but this is beside the point. You are profoundly unhappy with KGS because it sees you as 4d (based on your play), while you want it to see it as 5d (based on your "peaks") - or maybe you just want your "peaks" to count for more.. Ok, got it.

The one point I can make here is that what you are talking about is not a "failure" but a "design" I think. I am sure parameters can be set to make the system behave in a more sensitive ways, but decision was made to make it behave as it does. I don't know for what reasons, but I am sure there were some. And you should investigate the reason, because this is really what you have a beef with, not some imaginary "failure of the system". And it is this reason you have to argue agains and hopefully change, not complain about needing "superhuman effort" - which is such load of gooey.

In the meantime, since you cannot get what you want on a silver platter, there are several *easy* options open to you, as already pointed out:

• create multiple accounts for various "modes"
• play unrated games when not in best form
• switch to a server that offers what you need

There are probably more such easy options if you think hard. I see all of the above options as no-brainers, each one solves your problem easily, and that's what any reasonable person would do in your shoes. But apparently you find each of these options "inconvenient", and you rather suffer the terrible fate of being a 4d than do any of that. Well, fine, not really my problem, just trying to help here.

All I can say - keep knocking on doors, maybe somebody will open. But if you wish to argue, argue smartly, not make a nuisance of yourself. Find a reasons for why things are the way they are, and then find arguments why these reasons are no (longer) good or valid.

PS>
Oh, and one more thing, because I really need to drive home this point: If you play strongly enough, you get to 5d and beyond. Trust me, it is a proven fact, I have seen it happen. Many times. Goes for any rank, actually, except maybe 9d. I am saying that in anticipation of having the same discussion with you about 6d when you finally reach 5d.

Other than that, I pretty much said what I wanted to say, so I will probably bow out of this discussion or all that is left for me is to keep reiterating what I have already said.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Let's do it another way. Robert, I downloaded the same file ez4u used, which is a log of all your game results in the account. I computed the rolling average of your win-lose:



I picked 50 items in the window because you like fast changes, or so it seems. I can use 10 or 100 if you prefer, but whatever.



I wanted to see if you had good averages (~50% WR) No. Most often your WR is below 0.55



So, in 3000 of these data points you were "losing" rating (ballpark figure: that's 1/4th of it).



In 1646 you were "wining" rating (somewhat more than 10%).

So, in summary, in a high volatility rating it's quite likely you'll be 4d far, far more often than 5d. And the average of your rating would just put you as a strong 4d:



That's 0.6% of all data points.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

Because 100 does not require frequently playing players to devote ALL their effort and time on KGS rank improvement. 100 is a number of games that can be played seriously in succession day after day. 400 is not.



No. Read my earlier explanations again.



Other failures of this system:
- occasional manual global rating adjustments
- chaotical ratings or incidents of chaotical jumps of ratings of part of the players
- unclarity for the players what the likely rating effect will be of handicap games or games with 2+ KGS-ranks difference



Eh? You mean the accounting of the history of a player's games?



I did. Several times. Several years ago.



It was in vain.



No. It does not SOLVE the problem. It CIRCUMVENTS it.

(Supposing the same rank scale.)

No. In a high volatility rating system, I see the immediate success of a win and there is no frustration, so I am immediately motivated in every game. I would thus frequently play seriously and produce very other results.

It sounds like the ideal rating system for Robert is L19's: Type whatever number in the box makes you happy