Brugernavn: Kodeord:
Ny bruger registrering
Moderator: rod03801 
 Feature requests

Do you miss something on BrainKing.com and would you like to see it here? Post your request into this board!
If there is a more specific board for the request, (i.e. game rule changes etc) then it should be posted and discussed on that specific board.

For further information about Feature Requests, please visit this link on the Brainking.Info site : http://brainking.info/archives/20-About-feature-requests.html


Meddelelser per side:
Liste over diskussionsborde
Du har ikke rettigheder til at skrive meddelelser til dette bord, Mindste medlemsskabsniveau nødvendigt for at skrive til dette bord er BrainBonde.
Tilstand: Alle kan skrive
Søg i meddelelser:  

6. Februar 2003, 17:56:14
Mike UK 
Emne: Ratings
Following on from the comments below and having seen how the ratings system has worked at GoldToken and other places I would like to offer some observations:

1) As others have said, the USCF ELO system does not work at all well for Backgammon and its variants. There is too much luck involved in these games and soon the higher-rated players will refuse to play the lower-rated ones because they lose too many points if they lose the game. FIBS is a much better system for these games and its introduction at GT has resulted in the top players lists becoming much more representative of ability. FIBS is probably better also for the other games which involve luck such as the Battleship-type games.

2) The Provisional Ratings formulae used by the USCF ELO system are designed to facilitate a small number of new players reaching their correct rating in a large pool of established players. On a site such as this the opposite applies - a relatively large number of new players with no real established base. I don't think they are of any benefit here and I would simply get rid of them. ie just use the established formulae. They are particularly inappropriate for Backgammon etc as they quickly take you to an (almost) arbitrary rating (see 1 above) from which it can take around 300 games to approach your true rating.

3) The treatment of multi-game matches is I think a little simplistic. I think common sense suggests you should receive more credit for winning a long match than for a short one. Fortunately multi-point matches are common in Backgammon and FIBS copes with them simply by multiplying the rating adjustment by the square root of the match length. So you get 3 times as many points for winning a 9-point match as you would for a single point one. An n-point Backgammon match is equivalent to an n-wins match here. There is no such thing as a draw in Backgammon but the same formula could probably be applied to an n-points match. I think an n-games match can be considered as an (n+1)/2 - wins match. I'm not sure how you would treat a tied n-games match - again there is no such thing in Backgammon.

4) Ratings based on all matches played are easily manipulated by the unscrupulous. They would be more meaningful if based on tournament matches only.

7. Februar 2003, 23:28:19
dream 
Emne: Re: Ratings
Its great to see someone else agreeing with the change of backgammon ratings. I would like to note that although GT has implemented the FIBS rating system, it is not working correctly, at present a player will only gain or lose 2-3 pts, whereas it should be possible to gain or lose more even in a 1pt match. This 2-3pts has resulted in a stagnation of many peoples ratings, making it near impossible for a low rated but improving player to ever get near the top. Dailygammon however uses the FIBS system which works very well and is representative of a players strength. If multipoint games with the cube were intoduced here (fingers crossed) then a modification of the ratings system would be essential.

Dato og klokkeslæt
Venner online
Favoritborde
Sammenslutninger
Dagens tip
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Tilbage til toppen