Entry Grade

[Laman]

from what i've heard, there is some movement towards assigning initial MMS at tournaments (at least at big ones) according to player's rating, not considering his declared rank (GoR 2050-2150 one MM group, 2150-2250 another, etc.).

if it is so, it would severely weaken importance of ranks in favour of importance of rating, make tournaments more fair and effectively solve problems of unevenly strong ranks in various countries.

still i can't say i really like it, because with such a change, ranks would become effectively meaningless and i like the nice, old-fashioned ranks more than only modern, cold, numerical rating

[HermanHiddema]

from what i've heard, there is some movement towards assigning initial MMS at tournaments (at least at big ones) according to player's rating, not considering his declared rank (GoR 2050-2150 one MM group, 2150-2250 another, etc.).

Yes, several tournaments implement such a policy.

if it is so, it would severely weaken importance of ranks in favour of importance of rating, make tournaments more fair and effectively solve problems of unevenly strong ranks in various countries.

No and no. It is not more fair, and it does not solve uneven ranks.

The EGF rating system is not inherently more reliable than the old ranking system. In fact, research in the Netherlands showed that for kyu ranks, the old ranking system was more reliable than the EGF rating system, by a very large margin.

Furthermore, GoR as a system tends to drift over time. It tries to compensate for this by the epsilon parameter in the formula, but the correct value depends on the number of tournaments that go into the system. And since that number of tournaments is different per country and per player, the epsilon currently is at best an average. Countries with fewer tournaments entered per year will drift differently from countries with more tournaments entered, unless there is a very strong tendency by players to play abroad. Which there isn't.

[topazg]

The BGA monitors the progress of BGA members' ratings and awards official dan grades when specified targets have been reached. Here is a definition of the system. Official dan grades are never revoked, even if a player's rating subsequently falls.

You misunderstand this slightly. Dan certificates are awarded in the UK, and once awarded are never revoked. However, there is an expectation that if your current strength is nearest to, for example 1k, then even if you have previously received a 2d certificate, you are still expected to enter as 1k. It is possible the wording in the policy is not clear enough.

This "mass shift" that would pull people's nearest grade down is not against any existing UK policy.

[richardamullens]

from what i've heard, there is some movement towards assigning initial MMS at tournaments (at least at big ones) according to player's rating, not considering his declared rank (GoR 2050-2150 one MM group, 2150-2250 another, etc.).

Yes, several tournaments implement such a policy.

Perhaps this will be the case for Barcelona (19-20 Feb). One can navigate from http://www.aego.biz/ to find the information - and it says

EGF ratings will be applied strictly. Prevent the organizers at least 2 weeks in advance if you have a consistent reason against that.

There is also the option for simultaneous games with Lee Young-sin 8p on the Friday evening.

Maybe this should be another topic, but payment in advance, often with a Paypal option, seems frequently to be becoming a condition for receiving early reduced entrance fees.

[mohsart]

Furthermore, GoR as a system tends to drift over time. It tries to compensate for this by the epsilon parameter in the formula, but the correct value depends on the number of tournaments that go into the system. And since that number of tournaments is different per country and per player, the epsilon currently is at best an average.

This is interesting.
In what direction would the drifting go for a player if
S/he plays a lot of tournaments vs very few (and what is the average number?)
Her/his country organizes many tournaments vs very few (and again, what is the average?)

And lastly, couldn't the formula be changed to compensate for this?

/Mats

[Harleqin]

And lastly, couldn't the formula be changed to compensate for this?

You would need to measure the individual effects in order to compensate them. Most of them are not measurable in practice, however.

Personally, I believe that some sort of Whole History Rating would be a much better model than anything ELO-derived.

[HermanHiddema]

Furthermore, GoR as a system tends to drift over time. It tries to compensate for this by the epsilon parameter in the formula, but the correct value depends on the number of tournaments that go into the system. And since that number of tournaments is different per country and per player, the epsilon currently is at best an average.

This is interesting.
In what direction would the drifting go for a player if
S/he plays a lot of tournaments vs very few (and what is the average number?)
Her/his country organizes many tournaments vs very few (and again, what is the average?)

And lastly, couldn't the formula be changed to compensate for this?

/Mats

Imagine an isolated group of 1 kyus, somewhere in the middle of nowhere, all at rating 2000. They don't visit tournaments, but every week they have a tournament amongst themselves and send the result to the EGD. Since they form a closed system, no rating points from outside enter the system. The epsilon parameter, meant to compensate for deflation, does however enter points into their system. Over time, their average rating will drift upwards. (This is not unreasonable, as presumably they get stronger from playing those round robins).

Now imagine the same group of 1 kyus, but instead of a weekly round robin, they just play over the internet (doesn't count for the rating). Once per year they play a real over the board tournament together and send the result to the EGD. With only one entry into the database, they will hardly drift at all.

From this example, we can conclude that playing more tournaments results in more rating movement upwards.

Of course real life is not that simple, and there are other factors at work, such as rating resets, new players entering the system, old players leaving the system, etc.

In general, we might expect:

• Players from countries with fewer tournaments will tend to be underrated.
• Players from countries with many new players entering will tend to be underrated.
• Players from countries which do not allow rating resets will tend to be underrated.

And, of course, the opposite will also hold:

• Players from countries with many tournaments will tend to be overrated.
• Players from countries with no new players entering will tend to be overrated.
• Players from countries which use rating resets often will tend to be overrated.

Since each country has different combinations of these factors, it is very hard to pinpoint which countries are under or overrated by how much.

To compensate for this behavior, you might use a per person factor determining the reliability of their rating. That's what the AGA ratings do with their Sigma, and also what a rating system like Glicko does.

[mohsart]

Thanks HermanHiddema for the clarification.

/Mats

[topazg]

WHL, Glicko, Glicko2, Maximum Likelihood would all, IMHO, be a really nice improvement to a system that has to rely on data as sparse as 6 games per year for accurately rating people.

[richardamullens]

WHL, Glicko, Glicko2, Maximum Likelihood would all, IMHO, be a really nice improvement to a system that has to rely on data as sparse as 6 games per year for accurately rating people.

Organise a twice yearly 3 day 8 round residential Chatteris tournament with cheap booze or a camp site week long summer event by a pub on the Norfolk broads with the option to frolic in the water.

Then you can get an accurate GoR

[topazg]

WHL, Glicko, Glicko2, Maximum Likelihood would all, IMHO, be a really nice improvement to a system that has to rely on data as sparse as 6 games per year for accurately rating people.

Organise a twice yearly 3 day 8 round residential Chatteris tournament with cheap booze or a camp site week long summer event by a pub on the Norfolk broads with the option to frolic in the water.

Then you can get an accurate GoR

Sheesh, that sounds really fun actually

[Javaness]

Since it was conceived, GoR has not been updated. It will take more than arguments pointing out that a better system can be designed to change that.
I added some data to the bottom of this page that are vaguely relevant to this thread
http://senseis.xmp.net/?EGFRatingPerRank

[tapir]

I thought epsilon was changed, as Javaness noted some time ago...

However, I would like to see the dutch system (for dan players) explained here. Maybe, it is a viable alternative to rating magic.

[HermanHiddema]

I thought epsilon was changed, as Javaness noted some time ago...

However, I would like to see the dutch system (for dan players) explained here. Maybe, it is a viable alternative to rating magic.

There is a short explanation at SL's EuropeanRanks already, but I'll give an answer here as well:

Promotions for dan grades are regulated by the Dutch Go Association via a "Promotion Committee". This committee consists of three people, who award promotions based on a player's tournament results.

To get promoted to X dan, the most important criterion is:

• Score at least about 50% against other X dan in serious even games, over a sufficient number of games.

The "sufficient" here depends on the grade you're trying to get: higher grades require more games (something like 8+4*X games to get X dan, I think).

If this criterion is met, then there are two additional criteria that come into play:

• Score about 67% against players 1 rank weaker than X dan.
• Score about 33% against players 1 ranks stronger than X dan (at least 1 win required).

The above three criteria can, additionally, compensate a bit for each other.
For example: If you have ca. 60% against X dan, that could compensate for getting only ca. 25% against X+1 dan.

Very strong results can also lower the "sufficient" number of games in the first criterion. Personal example: I was promoted to 4d with a result of 8 wins, 3 losses against other 4 dan. Normally something like 12-12 is required.

For edge cases, there are several additional fuzzy factors:

• How did the player do against players 2 or more ranks higher than X?
• How old is the player, and how long has he been his current rank?
• Did the results include foreign players? Are they from a country known to be weak/strong? How is their rating?
• Do we like the player's hair style? What is his shoe size? Is today a thursday?

This can be a pretty fuzzy system, and in the end it is the decision of the committee, and we trust their expertise. There are rarely complaints.

I don't think it's really a viable alternative for a European wide system though

[gaius]

Nice explanation Herman! Did you ever ask if they're looking for a new third member now that Ad is inactive? You seem to be the perfect candidate