Life In 19x19

blaubaer wrote:and the rating system is not for me. I dont like getting games counted from
months ago and i believe its wrong to rate handicapgames.

Just an aside -- If the goal of the ranking system is to set proper handicap between players, then not only do you need to allow handicap games to be ranked, you ideally will have a large percentage of the games played at varying handicaps. If you don't allow handicap games to be ranked, how could you possibly have proper rank spacing? If you don't think ranks should be used for handicapping, then that's a different thing entirely....

Hi there

Handicap games are for teaching or learning and should not be used to rank someones Go-strengh.

If you don't allow handicap games to be ranked, how could you possibly have proper rank spacing? If you don't think ranks should be used for handicapping, then that's a different thing entirely....

Why should a proper "rank spacing" only exist if one uses handicap games to be rated ?
Is it more important to get the "real handicap strengh" than to get information about even game strengh ?

There is a chapter in A Ishidas Attack & Defense (a very good book btw) there the author gives an example of a player
who regulary beats weaker opponents, but usually loses against stronger or equal opponents, due to his over overly aggressiv playing style .

There is a chapter in A Ishidas Attack & Defense (a very good book btw) there the author gives an example of a player
who regulary beats weaker opponents, but usually loses against stronger or equal opponents, due to his over overly aggressiv playing style .

Over agressive style doesn't have anything to do with handicap games, so why bring it up?

Why should a proper "rank spacing" only exist if one uses handicap games to be rated ?
Is it more important to get the "real handicap strengh" than to get information about even game strengh ?

Because how can you differ between a 1d and a 5k if all you have are game results between players of equal strength?
If you allow the input of handicap games you could see they each have a roughly 50% winning rate against each other if the 5k gets 5 stones. So with this you know both players are about 5 ranks apart.

Also i don't think the "even game strength" differs that much from the "low handicap game strength". White doesn't play that much different in an even game than in a 3 stone handicap-game. It's just that in the handicap game, white is behind from the beginning until black makes mistakes which allow white to catch up.

Higher handicap games are surely a little different and are best left for teching, but then KGS only rates games up to 6 handicap.

Over agressive style doesn't have anything to do with handicap games, so why bring it up?

Aggressiveness has very much to do with handicapgames - at least in this case where white really wants to win !!
White needs to overplay and what is perhaps even more important he needs luck! Imagine some very strong prof. Goplayer
giving 3-5 Stones against a strong amateur. White will most likely come into situations there he can chose
between some sharp moves, hamete for example - that normally won`t work. Whether these moves work or not
depends on the knowledge of the weaker player, and not on the quality of the moves themself.

Because how can you differ between a 1d and a 5k if all you have are game results between players of equal strength?

WHY should i differ between them ?? If the 5k is able to play on 3 or 4 stones - so what ?

If you allow the input of handicap games you could see they each have a roughly 50% winning rate against each other if the 5k gets 5 stones. So with this you know both players are about 5 ranks apart.

I dont want to know how much the 5 kyu is apart from our 1 dan. I want to know if our 1 dan can play even against 1dans
and if the 5 kyu plays level against 5kyus.

blaubaer wrote:Aggressiveness has very much to do with handicapgames - at least in this case there white really wants to win !!
White needs to overplay and what is perhaps even more important he needs luck!

this is not true

white just has to play a normal game and patiently wait for black's mistakes.

if white loses, then maybe the handicap was too high.

blaubaer wrote:

Because how can you differ between a 1d and a 5k if all you have are game results between players of equal strength?

WHY should i differ between them ?? If the 5k is able to play on 3 or 4 stones - so what ?

if the 5k can consistently beat a 1d on 3 stones, then either the 5k is really stronger than 5k, or the 1d is really weaker than 1d, or maybe they're both off a little.

blaubaer wrote:I dont want to know how much the 5 kyu is apart from our 1 dan. I want to know if our 1 dan can play even against 1dans
and if the 5 kyu plays level against 5kyus.

how do you know if the 5k is really 5k? and how do you know if the 1d is really 1d?

maybe all the 1d's are really weaker than 1d since they only play each other, and maybe all the 5k's are really stronger than 1d since they only play each other.

white just has to play a normal game and patiently wait for black's mistakes.

if white loses, then maybe the handicap was too high.

or maybe he should play more aggressiv ?
Normal game normally wont do.

if the 5k can consistently beat a 1d on 3 stones, then either the 5k is really stronger than 5k, or the 1d is really weaker than 1d, or maybe they're both off a little.

If a player is good at handicap games, either as white and/or black then hell have good results in this kind of games .
That doesnt say much about his evengame playingstrengh.
The argument "i played against the 1dan and won several times on h4" is similar to "i won with 35 points".
Even though i can give a 3dan handi 3 wont mean that i am 6dan. It only shows OUR difference in strengh.

You don't need to play aggressive in a handi game. You are not stronger than someone only because you are more aggressive. That's because you either read deeper, or have a better sense of direction or you know tesuji he doesn't or whatever, that's all technique skills.


Aggressive is one's playing style, and it's very hard to change one's style from game to game.

You don't need to play aggressive in a handi game. You are not stronger than someone only because you are more aggressive. That's because you either read deeper, or have a better sense of direction or you know tesuji he doesn't or whatever, that's all technique skills.

Very good! Aggressiveness tells us sthg about playing style and not about strengh. One really don`t need to play aggressive in handi games as the white player, because its a kind of teaching game. If white is interested in winning such handigames then he will play very differently.

Aggressive is one's playing style, and it's very hard to change one's style from game to game.

Very good! Dont you think your playing style may change if you play 100s of rated handigames on kgs with the wish to win ?
And believe me ... normal solid game wont do
But it will do in even games .

blaubaer wrote:One really don`t need to play aggressive in handi games as the white player, because its a kind of teaching game. If white is interested in winning such handigames then he will play very differently.

Nothing about teaching or non teaching game. Why do you add an irrelative assumption here?

blaubaer wrote:Very good! Dont you think your playing style may change if you play 100s of rated handigames on kgs with the wish to win ?

Very very good! Dont you think it may not? Don't you think without wish to win one may change one's style? Don't you think 100s even games may change one's style? Don't you think free games may change one's style? Don't you think you may use chopsticks to eat pizza?

blaubaer wrote:And believe me ... normal solid game wont do
But it will do in even games .

Reasoning?

Nothing about teaching or non teaching game. Why do you add an irrelative assumption here?

this irrelevant assumption is the usual eastern approach to handigames.

For more irrelevance read your own last posting

blaubaer wrote:
For more irrelevance read your own last posting

glad that you finally understand my imitation of your reasoning in my last post

glad that you finally understand my imitation of your reasoning in my last post

im really happy about your very limited imitation thanks

blaubaer wrote:There is a chapter in A Ishidas Attack & Defense (a very good book btw) there the author gives an example of a player who regulary beats weaker opponents, but usually loses against stronger or equal opponents, due to his over overly aggressiv playing style.

There is nothing unusual at all about beating weaker opponents and losing to stronger ones. In fact that is exactly what is expected.

Of course, "usually loses against equal opponents" is nonsense - if that is the case then they are not equal.

There is nothing unusual at all about beating weaker opponents and losing to stronger ones. In fact that is exactly what is expected.

Of course, "usually loses against equal opponents" is nonsense - if that is the case then they are not equal.

I lent this book to someone so I dont know the exact original term.
Of course there are players who can give 4 kyus 4 stones but cant hold there own in even games against "equal" 1dans.
This is what is meant.

blaubaer wrote:I lent this book to someone so I dont know the exact original term.
Of course there are players who can give 4 kyus 4 stones but cant hold there own in even games against "equal" 1dans.
This is what is meant.

Aha I see what you mean. Yes there are some players who are particularly good at giving handicap - above and beyond what their strength in even games would seem to indicate. I think HKA has a reputation as such, or did at one time.