Life In 19x19

shapenaji wrote:Do we really need to have this semantic argument?

It is not about linguistics but about your claim of ratings being accurate. I claim: Ratings are close to the opposite of accuracy. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that ratings would be accurate. What, IYO, makes them "accurate"?

EDIT:

To start with something simple: Rating numbers (as currently used) are linear. This does not model

A regularly beats B regularly beats C regularly beats A.

Since the ratings do not model reality, they are not accurate.

Ratings are an indicator of performance.

Yes, but this says nothing about (missing) accuracy.

If I am unable to update ratings because of the nature of the tournament, then they are a poor indicator of performance, and probably "inaccurate".

Of course, missing data invalidate accuracy, but this is not what I am asking for. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that ratings are updated well and regularly.

Fulan wrote:I come from a competitive culture that severely looks down upon any rule of mechanic that aids the weaker player and attempts to level the playing field.

Which culture is that, if I may ask?

SpongeBob wrote:

Fulan wrote:I come from a competitive culture that severely looks down upon any rule of mechanic that aids the weaker player and attempts to level the playing field.

Which culture is that, if I may ask?

The fighting game community. Though like I said on page2 the mentality has been shifting since the more recent games have blatant comeback mechanics to cater to the newer generation of weak minded video game players.

Fulan wrote:The fighting game community. Though like I said on page2 the mentality has been shifting since the more recent games have blatant comeback mechanics to cater to the newer generation of weak minded video game players.

I'm weak at fighting games (last one I played was Soul Caliber 2 and Tekken 2 before that--and I was only ok at them), but I'm not weak minded, good sir.

I'm not a good Go player and have never played in a tournament, but I'd say (rather ingenuously I fear) that handicap games and competitiveness are compatible. Here's my reasoning:

Consider a hypothetical round robin tournament where all games are played with full handicap, so every player is expected to win and lose the same number of games. At the end of the tournament, the official ranks of all players are recalculated according to the results of the played games, and the player with the highest new rank wins. For the purpose of determining the winner, fractional ranks (like 8.34 dan) will be used.

Let's say there are 9 participants with correlative ranks from 1d to 9d and every player is awarded 0.25 ranks for every win and punished by the same amount for every loss (this is just an assumption; the proper amount will surely be different). In this case, the 1d player winning all his 8 games will have his rating increased by 2 ranks, which seems roughly apropriate. He won't possibly win the tournament, but will have the prize of seeing his rank increased for future tournaments, and justly so I think.

With this hypothetical system, weaker players aren't given any unfair compensation despite the handicap, and the best player is as likely to be the winner in the end as if no handicaps were used. At the same time, all players have something to fight for, and there are no mismatches.

As I said, I'm far from expert, but I'm curious about this issue. Am I talking nonsense here? Has this been tried anywhere?

luigi wrote:As I said, I'm far from expert, but I'm curious about this issue. Am I talking nonsense here? Has this been tried anywhere?

I don't like your system because it seems like it would be unfair between players close in rating. Lets say the two top players are 4.31 and 4.33 dan. In effect, they play every game as the same rank, but the 4.33 dan wins ties. I don't feel the rating at the start of a tournament is a fair tiebreaker, but for determining rating of course the previous rating must be taken into account.

On the other end of the scale, in a McMahon tournament a 2 dan entering the tournament (supposing the bar is set at 1 or 2 dan) may have the odds against him, but if he gets lucky and beats the 4 dans he may well win the tournament. Under your system not only does he need to win his games, he also depends on the 4 dans losing a lot.

Essentially I feel that the rating system should depend on history, while the outcome of the tournament should depend as little as possible on pre-tournament history, which is why I don't think you should mix these two systems too much.

hyperpape wrote:

Fulan wrote:The fighting game community. Though like I said on page2 the mentality has been shifting since the more recent games have blatant comeback mechanics to cater to the newer generation of weak minded video game players.

I'm weak at fighting games (last one I played was Soul Caliber 2 and Tekken 2 before that--and I was only ok at them), but I'm not weak minded, good sir.

That's why i specified weak minded and didn't just say weak players. I realize it's not the same thing.

It's undeniable that games have gotten much easier over the years.