A new server is being developed: Kaya.gs

[jdl]

How good would it be if there was a ranking in that server using the point-difference system. In other words, the result of a game is not win/lose but the difference of scores.

Winning by greater than 0.5 is overplaying. Why reward that?

[hyperpape]

Yeah, it's a staple of pro commentary to say "white is a greedy bastard" when he wins by 1.5.

[entropi]

How good would it be if there was a ranking in that server using the point-difference system. In other words, the result of a game is not win/lose but the difference of scores.

Winning by greater than 0.5 is overplaying. Why reward that?

Only if my positional judgement was that sharp...

Seriously, the reason why I would like such a system is because I believe it would reduce the importance of counting and positional judgement, which I find the most (or only) boring aspect of Go.

[Mr. Mormon]

I wish. But positional judgment is still key for ko's and stuff.

[daniel_the_smith]

Seriously, the reason why I would like such a system is because I believe it would reduce the importance of counting and positional judgement, which I find the most (or only) boring aspect of Go.

I hear there's lots of old guys in Korea that will play exactly that (bangneki) with you, although that might be expensive. But I suspect you'd find it doesn't actually reduce the necessity of counting or positional judgment, just change the ways you use them. (Do I go for an almost certain 10 point win? or try for a 40 point win that might end in disaster? Conversely: Do I try to stay at a 10 point loss? Or do I try this crazy thing that might let me win, or might turn my 10 point loss into a 50 point loss?)

[entropi]

Seriously, the reason why I would like such a system is because I believe it would reduce the importance of counting and positional judgement, which I find the most (or only) boring aspect of Go.

I hear there's lots of old guys in Korea that will play exactly that (bangneki) with you, although that might be expensive. But I suspect you'd find it doesn't actually reduce the necessity of counting or positional judgment, just change the ways you use them. (Do I go for an almost certain 10 point win? or try for a 40 point win that might end in disaster? Conversely: Do I try to stay at a 10 point loss? Or do I try this crazy thing that might let me win, or might turn my 10 point loss into a 50 point loss?)

But these decisions rely more on intuition (or let's say a blurry reading) than on positional judgement.

In a conventional win/lose game, if you have a certain 10 points lead, you don't need to take even the smallest risk. Since a 0.5 win is the same as 50 points win, your decision whether to take the risk or not is highly affected by the positional judgement.

But in the game I propose (bangneki without money) you don't need to care about who is leading on the overall board. Your decision is based on "can I kill that group or not".
If you can, you are leading by 40 points instead of 10. If you cannot you don't lose everything, but you are behind by 20 points (still better than losing a conventional game).

No need to count before taking the decision of trying to kill or not.

[tapir]

But in the game I propose (bangneki without money) you don't need to care about who is leading on the overall board. Your decision is based on "can I kill that group or not".
If you can, you are leading by 40 points instead of 10. If you cannot you don't lose everything, but you are behind by 20 points (still better than losing a conventional game).

No need to count before taking the decision of trying to kill or not.

You might be interested in http://senseis.xmp.net/?HahnPointingSystem. There is one tournament in Germany, that is (often/always?) played w/ this system.

[daniel_the_smith]

But in the game I propose (bangneki without money) you don't need to care about who is leading on the overall board. Your decision is based on "can I kill that group or not".
If you can, you are leading by 40 points instead of 10. If you cannot you don't lose everything, but you are behind by 20 points (still better than losing a conventional game).

No need to count before taking the decision of trying to kill or not.

I don't completely agree, but perhaps we should stop the threadjacking now

+40 > +10 > -20. Trying and failing costs 30 points, trying and succeeding gains 30 points. So, with those numbers if you think you have > 50% chance of killing, you should go ahead and try to kill.

However, usually the payoff is not so even. Sometimes it's +90/+10/+8, in which case you should basically always try to kill. But sometimes it's +20/+10/-40-- failing costs 5 times as much as succeeding, so you need to be at least 80% sure you can kill or the attempt will lose points on average.

To make a good decision, you have to figure out how much a success gains, how much a failure costs, and how likely you are to succeed. The first two require counting (possibly a lot of counting), and the latter requires that you be well calibrated (do you in fact kill 8 out of 10 groups that you're 80% sure you can kill?). Oh, and figuring out how much a failure costs generally requires positional judgment. Sometimes success does, too-- sometimes, keeping a group dead can cost nearly as much as killing it gained.

I think this would actually lead to *more* counting for me, because I'd have to estimate the score both ways for many more decisions than I do currently (currently I only do that in very close games).

Finally, there will still be times when you vastly prefer a small, safe win/loss over a drastic win. E.g., you could be playing the last round of a hahn style tournament and as long as you don't lose big, there's no way for the guy in 2nd place to catch up.

[Kaya.gs]

I have played hahn's tournament and this model i like a lot. Regardless of what we think of the effects of such game, its simply not Go. Go is about winning regardless of the difference .


We may make it able to play like that anyway..but mixing it in with the rating system is dangerous.
I think the most complex problem presented so far is how to handle the rating system. I will make a thread soon about it.

[tapir]

I have played hahn's tournament and this model i like a lot. Regardless of what we think of the effects of such game, its simply not Go. Go is about winning regardless of the difference .


We may make it able to play like that anyway..but mixing it in with the rating system is dangerous.
I think the most complex problem presented so far is how to handle the rating system. I will make a thread soon about it.

Go on. But don't let the rating nerds convince you a rating system is of major importance. In fact, it would be fun to keep ratings in several rating systems simultaneously, and everyone sees the ranks in his preferred system. Guess, this would cure rating system preferences very fast.

[malweth]

Go on. But don't let the rating nerds convince you a rating system is of major importance. In fact, it would be fun to keep ratings in several rating systems simultaneously, and everyone sees the ranks in his preferred system. Guess, this would cure rating system preferences very fast.

I'm also interested in the API that will allow clubs to interact with the server. Could this mean that clubs can implement a ratings overlay (e.g. number of handicap stones between club players). Could this also mean that if the AGA (or other national/regional association) matched up usernames on the server to actual members that they could provide their own ratings?

These are the sorts of things I'd like to see... an open format that, while the core server isn't affected by the outside, the user's experience is affected by the plug-ins or associations they choose.

[Kaya.gs]

Go on. But don't let the rating nerds convince you a rating system is of major importance. In fact, it would be fun to keep ratings in several rating systems simultaneously, and everyone sees the ranks in his preferred system. Guess, this would cure rating system preferences very fast.

I'm also interested in the API that will allow clubs to interact with the server. Could this mean that clubs can implement a ratings overlay (e.g. number of handicap stones between club players). Could this also mean that if the AGA (or other national/regional association) matched up usernames on the server to actual members that they could provide their own ratings?

These are the sorts of things I'd like to see... an open format that, while the core server isn't affected by the outside, the user's experience is affected by the plug-ins or associations they choose.

It will probably be possible to do "ratings overlay" if its desired, but i dont know if its a good idea. The "have every rating everyone wants" idea is not so good. Ratings get better and more accurate the more people they have.
If you have 10 systems u dont know how to keep track off, then they will all not work.
Ratings is turning out to be a more complex subject than i thought: there doesnt seem to be a system that makes everyone happy .


But, for example, KGS teaching ladder could have their own 'karma'. So each time you play there you get a +1, and each time you recieve a game u do a -1 or the sort. So there can be some internal tools of tracking results and such.

[HermanHiddema]

I think the most complex problem presented so far is how to handle the rating system. I will make a thread soon about it.

Just pick a well defined modern rating system and implement it. Glicko, Sonas, WHR, whatever. Trying to design your own rating system is about as smart as trying to design your own crypto system.

You can't please everyone anyway, so I would focus on more important things.

[quantumf]

Just pick a well defined modern rating system and implement it. Glicko, Sonas, WHR, whatever. Trying to design your own rating system is about as smart as trying to design your own crypto system.

You can't please everyone anyway, so I would focus on more important things.

Absolutely. You can even change the rating system later. Comments about rating systems, clock systems, escaping rules, etc are just tiny irrelevant noise, compared to what I believe you want to achieve, which is a completely new and fundamentally different user experience.

If your system only achieves a better rating system than KGS (if that's even possible) then I don't see why I would move.

[danielm]

It's not tiny and irrelevant, as you can't have a superior user experience without paying attention to the fundamental details. The suggestion not to reinvent the wheel is a good one though. There is no reason to invent a new rating system, unless you happened to have studied that subject thoroughly and felt strongly that even the best existing methods could be improved.