Which ranking does always beat beginners?

[Jocke]

Which ranking would be practically impossible to beat (not reach but beat) for a beginner?

A "beginner" is defined here as having played less than 200 games.

Also, let's say rankings are based on the KGS ranking system.

Also, if your answer to the question is "it depends", try to come up with a rank which would be absolutely impossible to beat. Would really a 9 or 8 dan player be possible to beat within 200 games? Probably not.

As a beginner, I am very interested in this, since this ranking, whatever it is, would be nice to reach.

Cheers!

[snorri]

Are you talking about KGS? Then there are ways of winning and losing games that have nothing to do with rank, so the answer is there is no level.

[Jocke]

Are you talking about KGS? Then there are ways of winning and losing games that have nothing to do with rank, so the answer is there is no level.

I am just basing the ranking on KGS.

I exclude all kinds of cheating or weird wins and losses that don't have to do anything with skill. There are so many different situations. Hard to define exactly, of course.

[snorri]

Well, there are people who come from other games that involve some similar skills, such as chess, who can be SDK almost immediately, certainly within 200 serious games. I have no idea how strong a player who grew up in the one of the classic go houses in Japan would have been after 200 games, considering the kinds of games they would have been playing and---more importantly---who'd they be playing.

So basically what I'm saying is there's a problem with your definition of beginner.

[PeterPeter]

I don't think anyone will be able to give you a definitive cut off point, just a range of ranks over which it becomes increasingly unlikely a beginner will win.

[jts]

Well, first you have to clarify whether you mean in an even game or in a handicap game. Second, you have to say whether you mean regularly or rarely. In a game that is mis-handicapped by one stone, B wins 1/3 of games, and then fewer and fewer for each additional handi you remove. You can choose the probability that you consider "possible", and then calculate the rank gap you need based on that.

[billywoods]

I exclude all kinds of cheating or weird wins and losses that don't have to do anything with skill. There are so many different situations. Hard to define exactly, of course.

Do you also exclude the situation in which the 'beginner' plays 200 games, say, over the course of four years - one per week - and enlists the help of a teacher to review the games, and studies many books full of go problems and so on? (This is a rather exaggerated situation, perhaps, but not as exaggerated as you might think.) It wouldn't surprise me if such a person could reach mid-dan ranks.

When I say that it's not as exaggerated as you might think, what I mean is that I know people who've reached 15-12 kyu within a matter of a few days, and I know people who have played for years and never reached that level. Number of games played is one metric, but it's not the only one or the most useful.

[snorri]

As a beginner, I am very interested in this, since this ranking, whatever it is, would be nice to reach.

For me, it's not the question that bothers me so much as the attitude that's reflected by the above statement. What's your motivation?

[Dusk Eagle]

I agree, I can't understand why you're looking to maximize your rank such that your total number of games remains below 200. I can understand wanting to place a restriction on the time it takes, but number of games?

[PeterPeter]

I agree, I can't understand why you're looking to maximize your rank such that your total number of games remains below 200. I can understand wanting to place a restriction on the time it takes, but number of games?

I read it that the OP wants to know what rank he needs to reach so that he never gets beaten by someone who has played less than 200 games.

[Dusk Eagle]

I agree, I can't understand why you're looking to maximize your rank such that your total number of games remains below 200. I can understand wanting to place a restriction on the time it takes, but number of games?

I read it that the OP wants to know what rank he needs to reach so that he never gets beaten by someone who has played less than 200 games.

You're right, I misunderstood.

I really don't know what the answer is. One of my friends, who I introduced to the game, is at around 170 games on KGS and has played at least 30 games offline, and is just below 12k. I would think that would mean he would have an extremely difficult time beating a 9k. Of course, someone who for some reason set out with the goal to become as strong as possible while playing less than 200 games would be stronger than him at the 200 game mark.

[Jocke]

I read it that the OP wants to know what rank he needs to reach so that he never gets beaten by someone who has played less than 200 games.

Exactly! I think having that ranking is a definition of being good at go. That's my motivation.

[Boidhre]

I read it that the OP wants to know what rank he needs to reach so that he never gets beaten by someone who has played less than 200 games.

Exactly! I think having that ranking is a definition of being good at go. That's my motivation.

Number of games isn't a great way of looking at it. Some people can improve very quickly based off fewer games played and plenty of study on the side (tsumego etc), or simply better quality games, 200 blitz as a beginner versus 200 slow games against far stronger players. Define as someone playing 3 months or whatever and you'll get a better answer, though even then go prodigies will mess things up for you.

[Dusk Eagle]

I disagree that being able to always beat beginners at any game, not just Go, defines being good at the game. Good players can always beat players who can always beat players who can always beat players who can always beat players who can always beat beginners at a game.

[Boidhre]

I disagree that being able to always beat beginners at any game, not just Go, defines being good at the game. Good players can always beat players who can always beat players who can always beat players who can always beat players who can always beat beginners at a game.

It may be the OP wants to avoid the situation of sitting down across from someone, getting thrashed, and asking how long they've been playing and getting "3 months" back as an answer after they themselves have been playing two years. This is frustrating in almost any activity. Rather than actually thinking 5k or whatever is being good at go.