Life In 19x19

zinger wrote:

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.

Suppose that player A and player B both beat 1 kyu players playing even 2/3 of the time. Quite reasonably, they are both ranked shodan. Against the 2 kyus, giving two stones, A wins 55% of the time, but B wins 70% of the time. OTOH, playing even A beats B 60% of the time. This sort of thing is quite possible.

There are many go skills, and reduction of strength to a single number is a fiction. "Equal opponent" to Ishida simply means one with the same rank.

Bill Spight wrote:Suppose that player A and player B both beat 1 kyu players playing even 2/3 of the time. Quite reasonably, they are both ranked shodan. Against the 2 kyus, giving two stones, A wins 55% of the time, but B wins 70% of the time. OTOH, playing even A beats B 60% of the time. This sort of thing is quite possible.

There are many go skills, and reduction of strength to a single number is a fiction. "Equal opponent" to Ishida simply means one with the same rank.

Agree about reduction of strength to a single number. Of course there is a range even within a single rank.

Nevertheless, winning 60% does not constitute "usually" in my dictionary.

I think that the numbers Bill gave were just examples. It certainly seems feasible for me that some players play much better at handicaps. Sometimes this can be due to style of play.

An example of this is with Lee Changho. I heard that he had a hard time giving players high handicaps because of his playing style. I also heard that there were high dan amateurs that could give several more stones to a lower dan amateur than Lee Changho, because of an aggressive playing style.

I think that this is because Lee Changho probably plays with less risk. He plays in a way to ensure a win in an even game, maybe keeping the game just a bit in his favor.

With this kind of playing strategy, it's only necessary to play a little bit better than your opponent, and you typically don't have to take huge risks.

But this same strategy may not work well in a handicap game, since black has such an advantage.

Handicap go is a different game than regular go.

Kirby:

With this kind of playing strategy, it's only necessary to play a little bit better than your opponent, and you typically don't have to take huge risks.

But this same strategy may not work well in a handicap game, since black has such an advantage.

Handicap go is a different game than regular go.

Hello,

Therefore i wouldnt admix handi and even games in the rating system.

I asked myself "why does KGS rate games up to h6"? Imo its because you`ll always find someone to play a rated game within +- 6 stones. These days KGS has a good deal more players and i doubt that its necessary to rate high handigames.

You can chose between many timesettings on KGS. It may be an idea to make 3 ratings for every player: blitz,medium and slow
games.

dont get me wrong ... i love KGS

blaubaer wrote:You can chose between many timesettings on KGS. It may be an idea to make 3 ratings for every player: blitz,medium and slow
games.

Two, blitz and standard ratings are enough, but current system is working also well. You can always exclude handicap games from yourself. Rating system can handle even games as well as handicap games.

But this is off topic, and current thread is special.

Liisa wrote:But this is off topic, and current thread is special.

Yeah, we can open a new thread "KGS would be cooler if..."