Life In 19x19

daniel_the_smith wrote:Do the anchors know they are anchors?

IIRC, they used to but don't anymore.

I wonder if I am an anchor on one of my accounts...

Can an anchor still advance?

That is, if you win enough games in a row, do you still advance, even if you're an anchor?

Joaz Banbeck wrote:If I were, say, about 7D strength, and really wanted to have that 9 after my name, I would have multiple accounts. I would play each of them, and the laws of probability would dictate a bell shaped curve of results. Most of my accounts would be 7D or 6D or 8D. But one would occasionaly sink to 5D, and one would rise to 9D.
I would abandon the 5D account. And I would save the 9D account for boasting.

So I suspect that many of the seldom-used 9D accounts are owned by players who play regularly under other names, and who could not maintain that rank if they tried to.

Well, this strongly depends on what the actual distribution looks like, I'm not sure that it would dictate a nice normal like that. Because of the exponential gaps between ranks, I suspect it would be easier to fall than to rise. So you'd be looking at a skew-normal, with who knows what parameters.

Is it possible to pop an account up with 4-5 games? probably, but I'd trust any 9d account with over 20 finished games

Kirby wrote:I wonder if I am an anchor on one of my accounts...

Can an anchor still advance?

That is, if you win enough games in a row, do you still advance, even if you're an anchor?

Yeah, I wonder about this too. I think it's only fair to pick a group of people who you know will be responsible anchors, probably an older crowd whose rank has settled.

This may be how it's done, I've no idea. But sometimes you look at your rank graph after losing one game after a streak, and think to yourself... "I just dropped as much from that as from my last 3 wins?...Am I an anchor?"

shapenaji wrote:... But sometimes you look at your rank graph after losing one game after a streak, and think to yourself... "I just dropped as much from that as from my last 3 wins?...Am I an anchor?"

Or you look at your game history and you think to yourself... "I've won 15 out of my last 16 games at my given rank?...Am I an anchor?"

I'm sure rank changes for anchors are only slightly smaller than for normal players. The way one would implement anchors is by fixing their average rank. If there are 20 anchored players the rank of each of them should change only about 5% less than it normally would(and it would pull the whole world with him by that amount).

It's even possible to automatically add and remove anchors. If an anchor moves too much relative to the other anchors he gets dropped and somebody more consistent gets added in his stead. IMO good anchors are slowly improving players who play many games. I assume most how satisfy that criterion are mid dan level players(thecaptain comes to my mind). Bots with a fixed implementation could be a good idea as anchors too.

they are anchors because their rank is steady

their ranks are not steady because they are anchors

xed_over wrote:they are anchors because their rank is steady

their ranks are not steady because they are anchors

What if an anchor jumps a stone or two (For example, he/she takes 3 months and devotes them to the game), would it be at all possible for the anchor to move ranks?

xed_over wrote:they are anchors because their rank is steady

their ranks are not steady because they are anchors

This could be the criterion by which someone becomes an anchor (their rank appears steady), but as anchors are a basis for the rating system, I do not see how their rank could not be calculated differently than a normal user.

shapenaji wrote:

xed_over wrote:they are anchors because their rank is steady

their ranks are not steady because they are anchors

What if an anchor jumps a stone or two (For example, he/she takes 3 months and devotes them to the game), would it be at all possible for the anchor to move ranks?

As I understand it, anchor ranks can move, just much more slowly than "normal" ranks. If an anchor really did have a dramatic change in strength I would imagine they would be removed as an anchor (Alternatively, everyone else on the server would have to study hard to maintain rank (= ....darwinian rankings ).

winning 15/16 won't make you a good anchor, it means you're under-ranked or on a roll.

winning 9/16 or 8/16 might be a good choice for anchor...

Kirby wrote:

xed_over wrote:they are anchors because their rank is steady

their ranks are not steady because they are anchors

This could be the criterion by which someone becomes an anchor (their rank appears steady), but as anchors are a basis for the rating system, I do not see how their rank could not be calculated differently than a normal user.

Their ranks are not calculated any differently. Its just that their ranks don't usually change much. That's why they were chosen as an anchor.

I think it is hard to compare. Tartrate was 9 dan who defeated pros and 9 dan (We miss you Tartrate).

draculinio wrote:I think it is hard to compare. Tartrate was 9 dan who defeated pros and 9 dan (We miss you Tartrate).

Strictly speaking, Tartrate was [7d?] the 9 dan ranking on KGS wasn't added until later that year (=

Tartrate still plays occasionally.

http://gosensations.com/?id=2&server_id=1&new_id=1100