Points for losses / activity rewards

[topazg]

Another criticism of the current system is that it is way too generous to people with bad records. Currently, 4th place in the top division has achieved it just by playing lots and losing every game. To make a contrived example, a 9d could play 3 others and demolish them all 3 times (total of 9 wins), and collect himself 10.5 points. In the same division, a 30k could play 11 others once and get thrashed in every game, but be on 11 points, ahead of the 9d, despite only playing 2 more games and with a 0-11 record instead of 9-0.

One solution is to simply reduce the value awarded to losses. I personally don't like this, as it currently makes a really good incentive to play people who are stronger, because the loss is more valuable than just as a teaching game.

Another solution (not one I can take credit for) that seems really elegant but hasn't received much discussion, is to cap the loss points to the number of wins. So, if a player has won 3 games, they can get up to 3 points awarded for losses - so if the total points from wins was 6, and from losses was 11, they would still have a total of 9 points (6 for wins + 3 points from losses capped to the number of actual victories).

This way, a record of 0-11 still gives 0 points, but a record along the lines of 9-7 will award full points for each of the losses. Thoughts?

[Chew Terr]

I was actually about to post this in with your other post, but this seems like the proper place for it. Perhaps go somewhere between the 'reduce value of losses' and the 'only reward one loss per win'. Perhaps every loss matched by a win gets 1 point (and half a point if it's the second loss against the same person, as it is now), but make it so that every loss not matched by a win gets 1/2 point instead. That way, you're rewarded for playing and winning, but you're neither out of luck for always losing nor is it as easy to win a division by massive amounts of losses. While I understand that more active players may be able to promote above me, it'd be a little frustrating if it was somebody who lost to everyone in the league three times.

[stalkor]

39 losses (in a class of 14 players) gives you 22,75
39 wins gives you 45,5 points

if you look at this difference you can only conclude that players that lose a lot play more then players that win a lot:P

[topazg]

39 losses (in a class of 14 players) gives you 22,75
39 wins gives you 45,5 points

if you look at this difference you can only conclude that players that lose a lot play more then players that win a lot:P

Yes, they do, and no-one I think denies that wins are fundamentally rewarded more than losses.

The point of the proposal, and the grumbles from some, is whether people with 0 wins should be able to get promoted / win divisions / not get relegated purely because they were very active. Most people don't play 20 games, let alone 39. Chew's half way proposal is also neat, and probably no harder to implement.

[Gabalon]

It's not the system which rewards activity (even without winning) but the less active stronger ppl.

Playing every game possible and losing is worth less then playing everyone 1x and winning.
And even without winning every game...lets say someone can beat 5 of his 13 league mates, he plays them 2 times each and everyone else once, he's still ahead and played 18 games.

You are right, it looks "strange" if someone only gets beaten and promotes at the end of month, but would it be ok of someone who played only half of his league mates get promoted? or only ~10 games?

But if we make it easier for stronger ppl to get more points they won't play more and i think an active weak guy is better for the league then someone much stronger who plays 1/3 of the games.
And the goal of the league should be playing much and i don't see it to hard to get a good result with less then 39 games.

Some strong ppl can't be online much and so they are not able to play "enough" games, but in this case i don't see why they should be in Alpha (or Beta) or even win the awesome prices.

[Jash]

I would totally agree with Gabalon. I believe that the lack of activity from the strong players is what makes weaker players (like me) climb divisions. Frankly, knowing that there is a possibility to advance to the next league and face even stronger opponents (i'm in beta 1 now) is very motivating for me. If I only had to play players my own strength for example I wouldn't be in this league.

As for the points problem maybe we can set a reverse komi system depending on the players strength (but then people may try to cheat the system by sandbagging ). This would obviously push the stronger players to be more interested in the challenge since they would have a lot of points to recover. Nevertheless, this league is based on an even games system so i guess my suggestion will stay as a lunatic proposition !

Anyway, play more people, even in beta it's hard to find opponents who are willing to play. And up until today half the league haven't even played a game yet !!!

[usagi]

Another solution (not one I can take credit for) that seems really elegant but hasn't received much discussion, is to cap the loss points to the number of wins. So, if a player has won 3 games, they can get up to 3 points awarded for losses - so if the total points from wins was 6, and from losses was 11, they would still have a total of 9 points (6 for wins + 3 points from losses capped to the number of actual victories).

This way, a record of 0-11 still gives 0 points, but a record along the lines of 9-7 will award full points for each of the losses. Thoughts?

Yeah that was my idea. It will probably never be implemented but thanks for remembering it ^^

The main problem with the league is you will have someone at 0-21 and they will beat out someone with 8 wins and 2 losses. That seems wrong.

Basically if someone plays 20 games and someone else plays 30 games, it is no longer a question of activity, it is a question of hyperactivity.

Example 1. If one person plays 2 games with every player and wins them all, and someone else plays 3 games with every player and wins 2 and loses the third the one with the poorer record will win simply because he was able to lose more games than the other player.

Example 2. Someone who plays quickly and casually and has a 33% win ratio can easily get 25 or more points in the league. last month in beta Chemboy won with a 15-5 record (75% win ratio). This means someone with a 33% record could have beaten chemboy. This is not right, it is a serious flaw, much more serious than the criticisms leveled at competing ideas.

Without the suggestion made above about capping points from losses based on the number of wins, or without changing over to something like winning percentage or SODOS (which frankly did not receive a strong criticism in previous discussions, and was rejected on frivolous grounds) the league will continue to be plagued by problems like this.

Look what happened last month. There was an extra spot in Alpha and vad, with a 29% win ratio was promoted to alpha over me with a 92% win ratio because he had played 27 games and I only played 13. It was not even possible for me to play that many games and get an even crappier win ratio than vad because of absentees in my room. So in that sense the system is unfair to a great degree. If you think that is a problem then just fix it.

-

[usagi]

It's not the system which rewards activity (even without winning) but the less active stronger ppl.

No, it's the system. Minimum games is 4, and people get 50% points for losing a game. The current mandate is hyperactivity, that's a fact.

Playing every game possible and losing is worth less then playing everyone 1x and winning.

However, instead of playing "everyone" people play "everyone-x" people. And people who have the time to lose three times as many games are usually on enough to play "everyone-x+y" people, beating out stronger and less active people. This is the fundamental flaw with the point system.

But if we make it easier for stronger ppl to get more points they won't play more and i think an active weak guy is better for the league then someone much stronger who plays 1/3 of the games.

That is illogical. The best way to fix the problem, which was created by mandates, is to mandate it OUT of the system. Require that people play 12 games in order to remain in their room (or get demoted) and then use winning percentage.

Look, As it stands, someone is not going to promote unless they play at least 12 games. Might as well mandate it. The current system is basically a roundabout way of mandating more than 12 or 13 games. But the difference is that if someone is active they can pass with a lower winning percentage. It gets ridiculous; a 15-3 record is trumped by a 15-10 record. What ? Why ? Both players have played a reasonable number of games against a reasonable number of opponents. The meaning behind wording the rules to encourage people via 2pts/1pt loses it's meaning once you play 10-15 games. So, mandate it.

There were 200 people in the league. If half the people were elimitated by the system by mandating 10 or 12 games a month you can still run 6 or 7 rooms of 13-16 people each. Alpha, 2 betas, and 3 gammas. Have a delta bigroom if you don't want a waiting list.

Frankly the criticisms I have been seeing against changing the system don't make a lot of sense. No, having weak, hyperactive people beat out stronger people and having people who basically have a 100% LOSING ratio stay in the 2nd room down from the top, is just a big failure as a league.

Essentially there will always be people who are upset with whatever system is in use but that isn't an excuse for lethargy. What it really means is that "because we're using it" is a poor reason for sticking with the current system.

I mean come on when I started this league in like 2004 the system I cooked up without even thinking was 2 points for a win 1 for a loss. Maybe it's time to finally move on from that. Gentleman we have the technology.

-

[Gabalon]

There is one good point i see in your post...

rising the minimum of games to stay in the league, so ppl who play only a few games won't give advantage to the ones they played, cause they won't play the others.
make the "luck" factor of getting a game with the nearly incative ppl smaller.


The rest is your point of view.
U say the current system is unfair, illogical and simply wrong.

I agree in one point, it's sometimes hard to get a game with everyone. If someone ist online often enough and has the time, but simply misses some ppl, maybe cause of different time zones...but that's nothing your changes would cure.

About the "unfair" system, that ignores win-ratio...
The Korean Style Insei League uses winration only (well, u can get a bonus if u play much) and the result (as i see it) is, some ppl avoid fellow insei to whome they might lose...better play no game then possible lose one.

In ASR League every played game will give points, and the fact that 15-3 is worth less then 15-10 is ok with this system.
There is a (+) and a (-), obviously the ppl who make the decisions think the (+) is worth the (-), better have a active league with overrated weaker player then a less active with happy strong guys...

To me it seems more illogical that (according to you) ppl with less then 15 games (and a good ratio) should promote or get a good place on the result table...
i think promotion should be some work to get, no matter how strong one is.

It can be discussed if this is the right way, but no matter who created the room and used it some years ago, the ones in charge right now are Stalkor and CGB,

[usagi]

It can be discussed if this is the right way, but no matter who created the room and used it some years ago, the ones in charge right now are Stalkor and CGB,

Right, but it is going to happen that someone with a 15-5 record is beat by someone with a 15-10 record. 20 games or 25 games? The likelyhood that someone will be able to play more games; In my other post I have shown how this can counteract 2 or 3 stones of strength.

Regardless of who runs the system, strength is being naturally de-selected from the league by the rules which are currently in place.

[Gabalon]

I don't see why these statistics should have any influence on the rules.

The decission to play or to play not is up to everyone and if ppl haven't got the time or the will to play they will have a less good result compared to someone who has time and will.
It's a competition, a bit luck (same onlinetime as league mates) is needed, rest is up to activity and strengh, and i don't see 1 game per day as hyperactivity...sure it is not easy for everyone, but who has not the time, skill and will to get promoted till alpha and get 1st place should not win the price, but he still can have fun and some nice games, it's not all about becoming first...

[regiongo]

I like this system as a low kyu player this isnt as much a system to determine the best player as to determine the most active players with benefits to the stronger players I only have limited experience (last motnth) But delta is abysmally empty
i would love to be in a more active league like gamma and this system makes it possible for me.

[topazg]

Playing every game possible and losing is worth less then playing everyone 1x and winning.

I must confess, the more I think about it, the more I think this is a compelling argument for keeping things as is.

I was also thinking, wouldn't it be nice if the loser could "thumbs up" a post game review from the stronger player to give the stronger player an extra full point? That would encourage reviewing the games as well.. maybe score a review out of 10, with 0.1 division points per point out of 10

[regiongo]

I like the idea but i feel it would have to stop at Beta 8 )

[montchik]

I was also thinking, wouldn't it be nice if the loser could "thumbs up" a post game review from the stronger player to give the stronger player an extra full point? That would encourage reviewing the games as well.. maybe score a review out of 10, with 0.1 division points per point out of 10

I don't think that reviews should be rewarded in the game bracket - this will be a bit unfair towards people who are not that proficient with their English. A separate teachers bracket maybe? (btw I have to discourage giving out prizes for this one)