Which rank does an EGF 10 kyu have?

[RobertJasiek]

Which rank does an EGF 10 kyu have on KGS?

I have noticed some strength gap between KGS 5k and 6k: 5k play much more reasonable than 6k; the knowledge gap is much greater than from 6k to 7k. Why?

[amnal]

Which rank does an EGF 10 kyu have on KGS?

It depends on many things. Do they play as seriously on KGS as they do in tournaments? Are they more likely to be tired? Are they more distracted, doing other things whilst playing?

I have noticed some strength gap between KGS 5k and 6k: 5k play much more reasonable than 6k; the knowledge gap is much greater than from 6k to 7k. Why?

Unless you have done a double blind test or similar, my money is on confirmation bias.

[snorri]

Unless you have done a double blind test or similar, my money is on confirmation bias.

Probably. But while we're tossing around wild unsubstantiated hypotheses, how about this one:

1. Most KGS accounts are relatively new.
2. 5 is a nice number. It's a multiple of 5. People tend to create accounts near nice numbers 20k, 15k, etc. Since 0 is not available, your choice is between 1k and 1d and I'll bet must people who create new accounts around there choose 1d.
3. If you lose games, your rating will drop.

So, the 6k players are the ones who created accounts at 5k and lost games, wherease the 5k players created accounts at 5k and were able to hold that rating.

Please, Robert, check the difference between 1k and 1d and see if I'm right

[speedchase]

Unless you have done a double blind test or similar, my money is on confirmation bias.

Probably. But while we're tossing around wild unsubstantiated hypotheses, how about this one:

1. Most KGS accounts are relatively new.
2. 5 is a nice number. It's a multiple of 5. People tend to create accounts near nice numbers 20k, 15k, etc. Since 0 is not available, your choice is between 1k and 1d and I'll bet must people who create new accounts around there choose 1d.
3. If you lose games, your rating will drop.

So, the 6k players are the ones who created accounts at 5k and lost games, wherease the 5k players created accounts at 5k and were able to hold that rating.

Please, Robert, check the difference between 1k and 1d and see if I'm right

Well you can't really choose your rating so... no.

[RobertJasiek]

It depends on many things. Do they play as seriously on KGS as they do in tournaments? Are they more likely to be tired? Are they more distracted, doing other things whilst playing?

I agree, but which range of KGS ranks meets EGF 10k? Surely there must be some EGF 9k to 11k players who know!

Unless you have done a double blind test or similar

Usually, it is simpler than that: E.g., 5k or stronger do not make many stupid empty triangles, 6k or weaker make them.

[Boidhre]

This table: http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideComparison

Puts it at 6k. However it comes with major caveats regarding accuracy. There's also the problem of which country you live in, you'll potentially get a lot more tournament play in Germany for instance than you would in Ireland so your EGF rank might be very divergent from your real strength at any one point in time.

[RobertJasiek]

This table: http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideComparison

Puts it at 6k. However it comes with major caveats regarding accuracy.

If I believed that table, I would not ask:)

[Ortho]

It depends on many things. Do they play as seriously on KGS as they do in tournaments? Are they more likely to be tired? Are they more distracted, doing other things whilst playing?

I agree, but which range of KGS ranks meets EGF 10k? Surely there must be some EGF 9k to 11k players who know!

Unless you have done a double blind test or similar

Usually, it is simpler than that: E.g., 5k or stronger do not make many stupid empty triangles, 6k or weaker make them.

I know 4 people who are 10 or 11 kyu EGF who also regularly play on KGS.

The strongest is ranked 6k on KGS, the weakest is 10k on KGS.

[karaklis]

The bandwith of ranks between two different systems is high. This is a table that was created from 2010 data:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?Sh%2Frankcomparison

It says that an EGF 10k has a 50% chance to be between 5k and 9k KGS.

[hyperpape]

This table: http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideComparison

Puts it at 6k. However it comes with major caveats regarding accuracy.

If I believed that table, I would not ask:)

But if you disbelieved that table, why would you think anyone on here could answer you?

[jts]

But if you disbelieved that table, why would you think anyone on here could answer you?

Perhaps he's drumming up interest for a forthcoming book on inter-federation ranking comparison theory.

[RobertJasiek]

if you disbelieved that table, why would you think anyone on here could answer you?

1) Players regularly playing real world games do know their real world rank.

2) Players having a KGS account do know their KGS rank. If they have also a real world rank, then they do know both ranks.

3) The table makes a lot of rank statements but does not give evidence. A player's rank statements are small, but good evidence because of (1) and (2). Good evidence is better than no evidence, especially because I believe in players' honest statements.

4) The table pretends accuracy it obviously does not have at all. Instead I can find counter-examples.

5) The table might be outdated while a player's knowledge about his ranks is up to date.

[RobertJasiek]

Perhaps he's drumming up interest for a forthcoming book on inter-federation ranking comparison theory.

1) No.

2) A book about rankings is a tournament rules related topic. Before I would write about tournament rules, I would first write about rules of play. A Go Rules Encyclopedia is not coming any time soon though.

3) Can you please accept that people here can have genuine interests when posing questions? Can you please avoid spreading bad rumours ("drumming up interest")? There are times for book announcements or references, but genuine questions helping the writing of a book at all want just the latter. Your suggestion demands correction and hence what it seems to be sceptical about; your suggestion becomes counter-productive.

4) You had a chance to know my major motive:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=5922

[jts]

I was being flip. Hyperpape's point is valid: more work and data went into the table of which you are so dismissive (as you should be, if it obviously does not have the accuracy it pretends to have) than into any of the replies your question elicited, so why would you ask us?

I apologize for spreading the rumor that you were contemplating writing about tournament rankings before tackling the more general topic of tournament rules. Hopefully my retraction has nipped this slander in the bud.

[HermanHiddema]

3) The table makes a lot of rank statements but does not give evidence. A player's rank statements are small, but good evidence because of (1) and (2). Good evidence is better than no evidence, especially because I believe in players' honest statements.

http://senseis.xmp.net/?RankWorldwideCo ... Collection gives a table of self-reported player ranks (with the date they were added).