User Name: Password:
New User Registration
Moderator: Hrqls , coan.net , rod03801 
 BrainKing.com

Board for everybody who is interested in BrainKing itself, its structure, features and future.

If you experience connection or speed problems with BrainKing, please visit Host Tracker and check "BrainKing.com" accessibility from various sites around the world. It may answer whether an issue is caused by BrainKing itself or your local network (or ISP provider).

World Of Chess And Variants (videos from BrainKing): YouTube
Chess blog: LookIntoChess.com


Messages per page:
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
Mode: Everyone can post
Search in posts:  

18. April 2009, 17:58:16
AbigailII 
Subject: Re: Ratings
Undertaker.: For me, everybody must start each game rating with 1000 or 1200 points and each victory give between 10 and 50 points, in accordance with BKR opponent. For me would be the more correct rating calculation and would be necessary play many games and play against best players to be in the top.

IMO, that is really bad, and can cause really wild BKRs (like 3000+ BKR) easily. One should not only take into account the opponents BKR, but also how well estiblished that BKR is. If I play against someone who has 1500 more BKR points than me, but has only played a few games the last year, my BKR should not change much, regardless of the result. The point is that ratings should give an estimate of someones strength, but you can only estimate someone strength by comparing it to the strength of others. However, if you don't know someones strength very well (because someone hasn't played a lot), a result doesn't give much estimation of your strength, so your BKR should not change much.

In general, your BKR should change more the less established your BKR is, and the more your opponents BKR is. And it should change less the more established your BKR is, and the less established your opponents BKR is. And number of games finished is a poor estimation of how well established a BKR is. Number of recently finished games is a much better measurement than total number of games.

Ok, I'll say it one more time. Glicko.

19. April 2009, 12:48:30
Undertaker. 
Subject: Re: Ratings
AbigailII: Did you already see that rating calculation in some game site for say if is good or bad? I don't think so.

If i talked about that is because i know a game site where that system exists and it's very good. Besides, there's a similar system in Portuguese Checker Federation and in many others Checker Federations, so you say nonsenses.

With the knowledge i have, in this moment, about brainking and about many games that there're here, i can create a new account and i would be in first place in many ratings, playing 4 games with good players and winning, and then i would only play with weak opponents and would make 25 games, maintaining my first place. I'm not obligated to play against second person in rating, so it's easy to be in the top and maitain me there.

With the other rating calculation that i talked before, you will have many difficulties to do it.

Sorry, but you see BKR system in some sports? It would be funny see in Tennis, a new player make 4 games and with lucky (or not) win those 4 games and become the number one of the world ahahah...or see a new country like Timor make 4 games in football and be in first place in Fifa rating.

Like in everything in life, to be in the top is need "fight"...here is necessary make 4 games and then play against weak opponents. Great.

19. April 2009, 13:27:30
Carl 
Subject: Re: Ratings
Undertaker.: You can make your plakoto rating more realistic by simply accepting one of the invitations i send you and actually playing the game! (Like in everything in life, to be in the top is need "fight").

19. April 2009, 15:02:24
Undertaker. 
Subject: Re: Ratings
Modified by Undertaker. (19. April 2009, 16:01:31)
Carl: You're searching by the wrong fighter.
As i said before, i played 4 plakoto games, 3 of them were by tournaments with prize and one was to understand better the rules of game and this way prepare me for that tournament. My opponents had and have weak bkr's and i don't know how, but i have 2457 points. I don't like very much of plakoto game and i must only play more plakoto games by tournaments with prize or by team tournaments.

So, i'm not going play more plakoto games and accept invitations only because i'm in first place. There're others games as PahTum or Spider Linetris where i only played few games and i have bad ratings and i don't play them too, because i don't like very much of them. The reason is the same, and if you want to be in the top, you must fight to change this wrong rating calculation (in my opinion, of course). With my idea about rating calculation, i would only have few points, and would be more fair, as i tried to explain before.

To finish, your post, trying to take advantage of this discussion for i accept your invitation, was worthy of a failled oportunist. I'm disappoint with you.

19. April 2009, 13:30:10
AbigailII 
Subject: Re: Ratings
Undertaker.: Did you already see that rating calculation in some game site for say if is good or bad? I don't think so.

Glicko you mean? It's used by FICS (free internet chess server), schemingmind.com and by the Australian Chess Federation, among others. I've played at both FICS and schemingmind. And I think it's also used by the ICS (internet chess server), but I haven't played there.

19. April 2009, 15:14:01
Undertaker. 
Subject: Re: Ratings
AbigailII: You're free to have your opinion like me too. You defend bkr rating calculation and i defend other system...

So, as you can see, there's a little problem here, between me and carl, because he wants to fight for the first place and i'm not interest in play more plakoto games, because i don't like of the game and it's not my fault if i'm in first place casually.

If you defend this system, so maybe you must get a solution for carl problem. Thanks and bye!

19. April 2009, 16:19:18
"GERRY" 
Subject: Re: Ratings
Undertaker.: There is very good player's on this site that you can beat in a game & there is player's on this site that you can't beat no matter what you do.It's been like that since i joined in 2004 & i do not think it will ever change.

19. April 2009, 16:32:20
Undertaker. 
Subject: Re: Ratings
"GERRY": Yes, unfortunately. I know some cases, but i think rating calculation is indifferent about that question...

19. April 2009, 16:43:39
"GERRY" 
Subject: Re: Ratings
Undertaker.: To get to the top of any Pro field of any kind.You have to work very hard to do so.It is not done in winning 4 5 6 7 times,and to stay there you have to keep going until you retire not just sit there:))

19. April 2009, 21:31:06
AbigailII 
Subject: Re: Ratings
Undertaker.: You're free to have your opinion like me too. You defend bkr rating calculation and i defend other system...

Where the hell do you get that impression from? If you think the system I'm "defending" looks like BKR, then I don't understand what your problem with BKR is, because obviously in that case, you don't know what BKR is.

BKR isn't Glicko. Nor Glicko-2. BKR is what we have, and of which Fencer has stated repeatedly in the past is what we will have now and in the future. But don't get the impression that just because I see drawbacks in your suggestion that I defend BKR.

19. April 2009, 22:01:25
Undertaker. 
Subject: Re: Ratings
AbigailII: I give a suggestion and defended it and you spoke ill of my ideas, so i thought you defended the present system. Now, i see you don't defend it. So, do you defend anything or only know speak ill of all ideas (and create tournaments and more tournaments and bad tournaments lol)?


19. April 2009, 22:35:40
Constellation36 
Subject: Re: Ratings
Modified by Constellation36 (19. April 2009, 22:36:12)
Undertaker.: Now, i see you don't defend it. So, do you defend anything or only know speak ill of all ideas (and create tournaments and more tournaments and bad tournaments lol)?

He does defend the Glicko system if you are not ill and can read. :-)

19. April 2009, 22:55:31
pauloaguia 
Subject: Re: Ratings
Modified by pauloaguia (20. April 2009, 12:30:01)
Undertaker.: AbigailII just pointed out some flaws in the system you were proposing (which, by the way, I also think was preetty weak at some points)
Then took the opportunity to present once more the case for Glicko as a system that already covered some of thos flaws and even addressed the original this last problem you brought because in Glicko, in order to keep a good ranking, you must keep playing or it will decrease because you don't have many recent games...

I'd also like to see other rating systems in place at BK, but seems to me that this discussion is being missdirected because of some missunderstandings about some of the previous messages...

20. April 2009, 11:56:37
Undertaker. 
Subject: Re: Ratings
pauloaguia, Constellation36: Ah, i never understood what she wanted say with glicko and i didn't know that system. Well, now i saw my mistake and i must offer excuses to Abigaill.

Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Back to the top