Entry Grade

[robinz]

hyperpape, Herman: thanks for the explanation, of course it's obvious that what I talked about doesn't work if a player enters without a rating on the system (but I hadn't thought of it when I posted).

Nevertheless, surely the BGA should just pick one method in advance for assigning ratings to new players based on their results, and stick to it - even if it gives absurd results in some cases, which is probably unavoidable. No great harm will be done provided it is clear to everyone that this rating is in some sense "provisional" (similar to the question marks on KGS grades - I think everyone knows that these numbers are basically nothing more than wild guesses). Allowing some officials to (seemingly arbitrarily) decide what is done on a case-by-case basis seems to just create potential for bad feeling, as this thread demonstrates - even though their intentions are probably entirely good.

[topazg]

I don't understand topazg. If the dan ranks in the UK were in rapid deflation ("needing the injection of rating points to keep on parity with other countries) this should show in the international performance of UK players against other countries. It doesn't, unless there is a general deflation in Europe a deflation in the UK is unlikely according to the statistics. Not playing tournaments to wait for a rank reset is at best a rationalisation, at worst rating obsession. It points to a real problem however - people started choosing tournaments according to "rating potential". Shortly, the success of the GoR may turn out to hurt European (tournament) Go in the long run.

Actually, my reason for doing it has been personal complaints against me of sandbagging (rare, I accept, but IMO this is a bigger issue than the one in question from the OP), which leads to an unpleasant atmosphere. Entering at a higher rank is frowned upon by the organisers. Entering at a lower rank is frowned on by fellow participants. Tournaments should be fun, not political.

EDIT: Maybe I should not particularly care what either think, but I do - to me, tournaments should be social events as well. It feels to me like "having to care about ratings and ranks" is forced upon us a bit. I would much rather just go and be able to enter as whatever I feel is most appropriate at the day, and let everyone else do the same - then enjoy the day, throw stones around, and go home. Instead, I end up deliberating over all this nonsense prior to turning up at all to find what other people are going to find the least awkward. Sure, I'm probably making way more of the problem than it needs to be, but having been caught in the middle of a genuinely awkward public dispute over it a couple of years back, I've become naturally cautious.

Addendum: Of course, I understand the awkwardness of the reset to 3d being, actually, a reset to 3.7d because GoR and EGF 3d don't tie up, and that's a separate problem in itself. The ability to reset as "GoR 2230" for example would be much more useful.

[Li Kao]

IMO the rating of a player should not depend at all on the rank he declared at tournaments. It should only depend on your won/lost games. The declared rank is used for match-making and nothing more. For me that rating resets are available and needed is evidence for the system being flawed. I'd look into using WHR or a similar system to calculate ratings.

[HermanHiddema]

IMO the rating of a player should not depend at all on the rank he declared at tournaments. It should only depend on your won/lost games. The declared rank is used for match-making and nothing more. For me that rating resets are available and needed is evidence for the system being flawed. I'd look into using WHR or a similar system to calculate ratings.

There are exactly zero rating systems that work when you have insufficient data. This issue would not be solved by WHR, Glicko or any other rating system you can come up with.

Rating resets allow the rating system to use additional data: The knowledge of the players and tournament organizers about a player's current playing strength in relation to other players. That knowledge is generally pretty reliable, in my experience.

So what rating resets try to compensate for is lack of data, not any inherent flaw in the rating system itself.

If all active players in Europe played at least one rated game every single week, plus a few tournaments per year, rating resets would never happen and the EGF rating system would probably be able to generate reasonably reliable ratings.

[tapir]

Actually, my reason for doing it has been personal complaints against me of sandbagging (rare, I accept, but IMO this is a bigger issue than the one in question from the OP), which leads to an unpleasant atmosphere. Entering at a higher rank is frowned upon by the organisers. Entering at a lower rank is frowned on by fellow participants. Tournaments should be fun, not political.

Addendum: Of course, I understand the awkwardness of the reset to 3d being, actually, a reset to 3.7d because GoR and EGF 3d don't tie up, and that's a separate problem in itself. The ability to reset as "GoR 2230" for example would be much more useful.

I understand that players can be underrated (the rank is after all not that much important, if not involving a reset). I also understand that playing underrated players is not popular, because you don't win much if you win, but lose a lot if you lose. At the same time, not only tournament organizers, but the federations and individual players all around don't like the idea of resetting at all. Maybe in lower kyu ranks, but above that it is like you didn't earn it and cheat your way up.

In the last tournament I played such an improving player, and asked afterwards (after luckily winning) whether he is really only 3k because he felt stronger. But you shouldn't take such comments as complaints, but as encouragement (at least I do, when someone tells me that I am underrated). It is just another way of saying "you improved".

The only way to be a sandbagger in the long run is by improving. (Calling you sandbagger is just an impolite way to express it.)

[Li Kao]

IMO the rating of a player should not depend at all on the rank he declared at tournaments. It should only depend on your won/lost games. The declared rank is used for match-making and nothing more. For me that rating resets are available and needed is evidence for the system being flawed. I'd look into using WHR or a similar system to calculate ratings.

There are exactly zero rating systems that work when you have insufficient data. This issue would not be solved by WHR, Glicko or any other rating system you can come up with.

Rating resets allow the rating system to use additional data: The knowledge of the players and tournament organizers about a player's current playing strength in relation to other players. That knowledge is generally pretty reliable, in my experience.

So what rating resets try to compensate for is lack of data, not any inherent flaw in the rating system itself.

If all active players in Europe played at least one rated game every single week, plus a few tournaments per year, rating resets would never happen and the EGF rating system would probably be able to generate reasonably reliable ratings.

IMO we should use that information only for match-making. I have no problem with a player being matched at a higher rank when he says that he improved much. But the rating should only follow if he shows results consistent with that. So instead of sandbagging people you play at the higher rank, but your rating isn't reset, but improves rapidly if you beat people at that level.

[HermanHiddema]

IMO we should use that information only for match-making. I have no problem with a player being matched at a higher rank when he says that he improved much. But the rating should only follow if he shows results consistent with that. So instead of sandbagging people you play at the higher rank, but your rating isn't reset, but improves rapidly if you beat people at that level.

But at the same time, your opponents are judged as if they played a much weaker player. If your rating is around that of a 10 kyu, and you enter as 5 kyu, then anyone who loses against you is effectively treated by the rating system as if they had lost against a 10 kyu.

[topazg]

I understand that players can be underrated (the rank is after all not that much important, if not involving a reset). I also understand that playing underrated players is not popular, because you don't win much if you win, but lose a lot if you lose. At the same time, not only tournament organizers, but the federations and individual players all around don't like the idea of resetting at all. Maybe in lower kyu ranks, but above that it is like you didn't earn it and cheat your way up.

The cheat your way up argument is nonsense. If we have 20 1k players, and 20 4d players, completely hypothetically, and the 20 1k players all get 4 stones stronger, then their ratings once it settles down are 2d, as are the 20 4d players. The 4d players aren't any weaker, they have just had their rating points sucked away. With GoR being based on ELO, resets are the only way of preventing this from happening. Cheating is a non-argument, it's maintaining the ranks of the dan players. This isn't exclusively a UK problem, it's a European problem. 2100 was 1d back in '95 or whenever EGF started the system, it's now under 2040 for precisely this reason. This means that people of the same ability have lost about 60 points, and the system is being "hacked" to make them still appear with the same rank. Not only this, but if you "reset" as 2100, you're resetting as GoR 2100 instead of your country's (or Europe's) 1d equivalent rating.

The whole thing is rather broken, to the point where over-prescriptiveness is fixing a symptom, badly, instead of addressing the cause. I would frankly prefer the abolishment of formalised rating systems completely, now that enough players have online accounts and a fair idea of "where they fit" in the grand scheme of things. The problem of "localised groups" have their rank isolated from the rest is already an issue (GoR gives the impression it isn't, but GoR 2000 doesn't always equal GoR 2000!), and having a formalised rating system doesn't fix it, just gives some false impression that you have.

In the last tournament I played such an improving player, and asked afterwards (after luckily winning) whether he is really only 3k because he felt stronger. But you shouldn't take such comments as complaints, but as encouragement (at least I do, when someone tells me that I am underrated). It is just another way of saying "you improved".

The only way to be a sandbagger in the long run is by improving. (Calling you sandbagger is just an impolite way to express it.)

If someone says "Wow, you're good for 1k/2k/whatever" that's a compliment. If someone says "You really shouldn't enter with a grade just to win prizes, it's cheating", it's not a compliment, and I don't care if it is a reflection on my potentially under-rated ability or not, it just hurts to have my motive challenged like this, and makes me want to avoid similar situations in the future. I don't need or want people to think I'm strong or weak, I just want to play Go. Ratings and ranks in real life tournament have not helped my experience in any way so far.

[Li Kao]

IMO we should use that information only for match-making. I have no problem with a player being matched at a higher rank when he says that he improved much. But the rating should only follow if he shows results consistent with that. So instead of sandbagging people you play at the higher rank, but your rating isn't reset, but improves rapidly if you beat people at that level.

But at the same time, your opponents are judged as if they played a much weaker player. If your rating is around that of a 10 kyu, and you enter as 5 kyu, then anyone who loses against you is effectively treated by the rating system as if they had lost against a 10 kyu.

Since the uncertainty of your rating is large this won't cost them much. And since you play several of them it's very likely that the estimated ranking for the time when the tournament happened gets updated. So the loss of points will be distributed between them, and if their ranking is more stable than yours they won't be affected much.

[tapir]

"The cheat your way up argument is nonsense. If we have 20 1k players, and 20 4d players, completely hypothetically, and the 20 1k players all get 4 stones stronger, then their ratings once it settles down are 2d, as are the 20 4d players. The 4d players aren't any weaker, they have just had their rating points sucked away. With GoR being based on ELO, resets are the only way of preventing this from happening."

Well, I don't want to hijack this thread, but at least this is not true. Every game adds additional points to the system, because there is a variable for that in the equation. Whether this is too small or too large relative to the improvement in the subpopulation / the number of tournament games played remains open to debate. But it does exist (http://senseis.xmp.net/?EuropeanGoDatab ... list#toc14 and http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/EG ... php#System), although I agree that resets are a useful feature.

That is, while in your example the may all end as 2d in the short term, if they continue to play each other for the next twenty years in many games without any improvement at all, they will all be 4d, 5d or even 6d.

"If someone says "You really shouldn't enter with a grade just to win prizes, it's cheating", it's not a compliment, and I don't care if it is a reflection on my potentially under-rated ability or not, it just hurts to have my motive challenged like this, and makes me want to avoid similar situations in the future. I don't need or want people to think I'm strong or weak, I just want to play Go. Ratings and ranks in real life tournament have not helped my experience in any way so far."

But you're much more likely to win a (main) prize when you start with a higher rank (higher MMS, above the bar whatever) than by sandbagging. I don't get it. Is this about the most wins encouragement prizes, really? People will always have an opinion whether you are strong or weak, you can't help it, even in online play.

[topazg]

Well, I don't want to hijack this thread, but at least this is not true. Every game adds additional points to the system, because there is a variable for that in the equation. Whether this is too small or too large relative to the improvement in the subpopulation / the number of tournament games played remains open to debate. But it does exist (http://senseis.xmp.net/?EuropeanGoDatab ... list#toc14 and http://www.europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/EG ... php#System), although I agree that resets are a useful feature.

That is, while in your example the may all end as 2d in the short term, if they continue to play each other for the next twenty years in many games without any improvement at all, they will all be 4d, 5d or even 6d.

I'm aware of the hack. It's quite clearly not enough to compensate for player improvement just looking at the statistics so far. If it was, GoR 2100 would, in general, be the same as 1d. There is the argument that people are unreasonably entering as 1d when they aren't strong enough, thus pulling the mean down, but most of my calculations are based on long established dan players who have been neither improving nor getting worse (like 2110 rated 2 dans who were once 2200 rated 2 dans, with little change in result quality against similar opponents that would imply a decline in ability). So my statement is still well supported, even if the EGF have implemented something that makes it very slightly mitigated.

What evidence is there that the GoR system has made the local, national, and international tournament scene a better place? We still have Japanese 5d players who struggle to beat Dutch 2d players _yet carry on entering as 5d_. We have French SDK players who aren't allowed to self-promote destroying other European players (we had a French "1k" come to a tournament last year who dominated a British 3d and 4d). We have Polish players ejected from their federation for entering as a rank they hadn't "earned". What positive things have come out that offset all of this?

But you're much more likely to win a (main) prize when you start with a higher rank (higher MMS, above the bar whatever) than by sandbagging. I don't get it. Is this about the most wins encouragement prizes, really? People will always have an opinion whether you are strong or weak, you can't help it, even in online play.

Not in this country. If I enter as 4d, I'll be definitely above the bar and have a chance of winning a bottle of wine. Alternatively, I could enter as 7k, definitely win 3 games, and definitely get a bottle of wine. The only difference is I won't get first pick.

But, frankly, I don't care about prizes either. What I _do_ care about is unpleasant atmospheres caused by accusations that either amount to "cheating for a better rank", or "cheating to win your games (and therefore prizes)".

[topazg]

As an addendum, if we carry on with formalised ratings, I'm wholly in favour of adopting a rating system that can incorporate volatility or cater for unexpected results. There are plenty of systems that do this: Glicko is a simple one not too different in complexity to ELO, WHR looks very promising, particularly as the computation aspects for real life tournaments are a non-issue.

What I really hope for is that people attach less value to ranks and ratings. I want tournaments to be based on social interactions whilst playing a mighty fine hobby against people of similar strengths, with a prize entirely optional (other of the honour of "being the winner").

[tapir]

I'm aware of the hack. It's quite clearly not enough to compensate for player improvement just looking at the statistics so far. If it was, GoR 2100 would, in general, be the same as 1d. There is the argument that people are unreasonably entering as 1d when they aren't strong enough, thus pulling the mean down, but most of my calculations are based on long established dan players who have been neither improving nor getting worse (like 2110 rated 2 dans who were once 2200 rated 2 dans, with little change in result quality against similar opponents that would imply a decline in ability). So my statement is still well supported, even if the EGF have implemented something that makes it very slightly mitigated.

What evidence is there that the GoR system has made the local, national, and international tournament scene a better place? We still have Japanese 5d players who struggle to beat Dutch 2d players _yet carry on entering as 5d_. We have French SDK players who aren't allowed to self-promote destroying other European players (we had a French "1k" come to a tournament last year who dominated a British 3d and 4d). We have Polish players ejected from their federation for entering as a rank they hadn't "earned". What positive things have come out that offset all of this?

Ouch. Imho, countries / national federations that discourage or even disallow rank resets simply confuse the system, while they feel good about their "earned" ranks. Polish tournament participation is decreasing for years now - is this related to the rank fixing policies? There must be an immense amount of anger about such a policy. Any comments?

The longer I read such threads the more I believe that rule expertise and rating science are harmful to the promotion of the game.

[topazg]

I suppose my situation was an unnecessary distraction from the main thread, and for that I apologise. I think my point is really your last one Tapir, the rating system as it stands has led to a number of formalised policies that seem to be damaging to Go as a whole, such as the situation in the UK and Poland (and elsewhere), and I think it is making tournaments a much less enjoyable place to play your Go. It's certainly causing unpleasantries over here (this thread started by such an example), even though the person in question is unlikely to be phased by the issue.

In short, I agree with you 100% that this rule/rating pedantry (ok, science is less pejorative ) is harming the promotion of the game.

Addendum: Apologies for ranting on a bit. I suppose I've become a bit of an evangelist on this one these days as I see it doing what I perceive to be so much harm.

[HermanHiddema]

I suppose my situation was an unnecessary distraction from the main thread, and for that I apologise. I think my point is really your last one Tapir, the rating system as it stands has led to a number of formalised policies that seem to be damaging to Go as a whole, such as the situation in the UK and Poland (and elsewhere), and I think it is making tournaments a much less enjoyable place to play your Go. It's certainly causing unpleasantries over here (this thread started by such an example), even though the person in question is unlikely to be phased by the issue.

In short, I agree with you 100% that this rule/rating pedantry (ok, science is less pejorative ) is harming the promotion of the game.

Addendum: Apologies for ranting on a bit. I suppose I've become a bit of an evangelist on this one these days as I see it doing what I perceive to be so much harm.

I don't think the term science applies, really.

Yes, there is science behind the design of rating systems, but that does not mean the current policies in individual countries are science based.

In the Netherlands, there was a proposal to regulate kyu ranks through the EGF ratings (dan ranks are already regulated differently). We then had someone with a PhD in mathematics actually research whether it was a good idea, and his conclusion was that self-chosen kyu ranks were far more reliable than EGF ratings.