Lista keskustelualueista
Sinulla ei ole oikeutta kirjoittaa tälle alueelle. Tälle alueelle kirjoittamiseen vaadittu minimi jäsenyystaso on Brain-Sotilas.
Andersp: Well we have two of the four problems resolved, but until there is a more realistic rating system, people who chase ratings will clsuter at the top and play each other rather than risk losing a lot of points in a single game. But once this is fixed and the cube is implemented, ther will be a lot of very happy people, I know!
Fencer: Thankyou for this enhancement. I look forward to seeing a game in which it applies. This will save a lot of unnecessary discussion about poor sportsmanship and the like, I'm sure.
Otsikko: Re: Looks like the fix introduced a new bug
alanback: I mean, he obviously worked in the shadows while we were all jeering at him, and now his surprise has come out slightly faulty :) SURELY his pride will not allow this issue to remain alive for much longer ;)
BIG BAD WOLF: I've run into several situations where it won't let me use the smaller die first. These aren't games where I will only use one die, but want to move the smaller number first, to set up the larger number. In one case it didn't give me the option of swapping my dice. Is this a bug or have the rules changed?
Marfitalu: Looks like the system currently does not see that you can bear off chips soon, and in the process - trying to make you use both your dice.
Looks like Fencer will have to add the code of "if using the smaller dice leads to a point where you can start to bear pieces off the board, then allow it - otherwise ...."
Fencer: Ah, good. I presume that the new rule is in effect immediately even for running games? Or do running games keep using the old rules, which didn't enforce maximum die usage?
If it is possible, both dice must be used. It means that some pieces can become "frozen" in certain positions because making a move with these pieces would create a situation where the second dice couldn't be used.
If only one die can be used, the one with the higher number must be chosen.
Please let me know if it really works. I hope I've fixed this issue at last but I could easily overlook some special cases :-)
jolat: Indeed, there's no cube on this site. The reason is that it isn't implemented - a Fencer decision. ;-) At some, yet unknown, time in the future, a backgammon version with a cube will be implemented.
Some put a line on top of this page with the message that cubes will be implemented in the future.
I am new on this site and I would like to play backgammon but it seems to me that it is not possible to use the cube.
Is this well that?
If so, do you know why this possibility does not exist here?
It doesn't seem to be possible to create a tournament of multiple-point matches. That is, one in which each player would play the other a 3-point match, for example. Am I missing something?
In any good rating system, if two players with the same rating played a large number of games, one would expect each to win half of the games that were not a draw. As the difference in their ratings increases, the probability that the higher-rated player will win increases. In the U. S. system the difference in ratings at which the better player will win 90.9% of the time is arbitrarily set at 400. A player with a rating of 1100 will win 91% of his games with a player with a rating of 700, and a player with a rating of 2000 will win 91% of her games with a player with a rating of 1600.
For any particular match, it should be possible to calculate from the difference in the player's ratings the probability that one of the players will win. Taking “We” to be the “win expectancy” and “ΔR” the difference in the players' ratings,
We (underdog) = 1 / (1 + 10 ^ (ΔR / 400))
[The formula on the original web page is incorrectly formatted. The one above is correct. ^ is raise-to-the-power-of]
For example, using this formula, if two players differ by, say 90 rating points, the probability of a win for the higher-rated player is 0.627, and for the lower-rated player, 0.373. If the results of a series of games bear out this expectation, the players' ratings are “correct,” and shouldn't change. Players' ratings change only when the results of a match are not what the difference in their ratings led one to expect, and the extent of the change in ratings is based on how far off the expectation was.
So, according to the US Chess formula, the 63% point is a difference of 90 points.
In Backgammon 65% is the difference between a top player and an average player. I believe BKR formula is based on the the one referred to above so we could expect the entire ratings spread to be maybe 100 or so points each side of average!
So, okay, you're right - a difference of zero is exaggerated but with such a small spread and a volatility of up to 10% of that per match? ... they might as well be the same, lol.
playBunny: That doesn't make sense, there must be a point at which equilibrium is reached where players of different ability reach different ratings.
For instance if I win 62.5% of the time against a weaker opponent, we would balance out at a point where I stand to gain 6 and lose 10, whatever that difference is.
I agree in principle that this system is not good for backgammon, but the ratings would not balance to everyone equal since there is some skill in the game.
grenv: In any event, because Fencer is recalculating the ratings from the beginning, we will be able to tell tomorrow whether we all wind up with the same rating!
playBunny: We won't all have the same rating, since if you lose and your rating goes down, you will gain more next time you win. Since there is some skill in the game the list will still be meaningful, though not as much as another system may be.
In fact winning 65% of games against average players is the problem, and there are undoubtedly players with inflated ratings as a result (for all I know I may be one :)
(Bear in mind that the link puts my message at the top of the page but doesn't show anything posted afterwards. There may well be replies to it on the "previous" pages.]
alanback: I think you're right about the compression. In fact, because the points awarded favour the lower player so greatly, I believe it'll be over-compressed.
Playing all and sundry in single-pointer tourney matches is going to kill the ratings of the higher players who join a lot of them. (Score one for the Knights vs the Rooks, for a change, lol). Winning 60-65% of tourney matches, as a top player would, will not be enough compensation for the 7 to 1 points differential against players within 300 points and certainly not for the 15 : 1 against those further down.
After the adjustment all those games which previously won 8 useful points will only, in fact, have earned beans while the lost matches will be harshly felt.
Another aspect of this formula is that the ranking system will be highly volatile. A player rated 120 below will have a 2 : 1 advantage in the points awarded though the skill differential is minor and the luck differential is zero. Any player to reach a height can be tumbled merely by winning 50-50 against weaker players.
(piilota) Jos haluat löytää lisätietoja jostakin pelistä, voit katsoa löytyisikö linkit-osiosta mitään mielenkiintoista. (pauloaguia) (näytä kaikki vinkit)