[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]

StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About


Aliases (info)
GoRating

Paths
Rank

Referenced by
Komi
DragonGoServer
EloRating
GlickoRating

Homepages
Frs
MAsterdam

 

Rating
   

Rating shouldn't be aliased to rank, in the context of Go.


Charles Matthews: Rank is expected to be quite stable, while ratings constantly vary. See rank and rating.

Frs: Why ?!? What is the (common) difference between a Go rank and a Go (or Chess; or any game) rating? (I'm not asking about Go's unique handicap feature.)

Charles Consider that a rank is a title. Ranks of pros are awarded by a particular organisation. Only one such organisation, the Zhongguo Qiyuan, also publishes ratings.

Also you should notice that the primary function of ranks within a club is to set handicaps. That is, it arises out of the need to have teaching games. But in different countries this meaning will be treated rather differently.

BobMcGuigan: In my opinion it may be possible to determine handicaps entirely by rating, using the idea that 100 points of rating difference equals one handicap stone. Of course that assumes that the ratings are calibrated properly. And there is also the problem of compatibility of rating systems. I think ranks are an artifact of the spread of go from China, Japan, and Korea to the rest of the world. Another way to think of ranks is to view them as measuring peak performance while ratings measure recent performance. In the United States the AGA has no official rank system but does have a rating system which is used to determine handicaps in tournaments. It seems clear to me that use of ranks or ratings to determine handicaps is really only approximate at best. It provides a starting point, really, and handicaps would then be based on long term performance between the two particular players, not on their performance with others. We all know of players who force opponents to a larger number of handicap stones than relative rank/rating would specify.

Charles Well, Bob, I think I was trying to say what ranks are in go. Not what they might be. For the benefit of Frs.

Probably noticeably fewer that 1% of the world's players even have a rating. The trouble with starting from the analogy with chess (or any other game) is that it blinds one: I think one can probably have an interesting discussion of the differences between ranks in go and shogi, but to compare go ranks with chess ratings is fairly silly.

Go ranks are more like the GM and IM titles chess introduced in the twentieth century, but more finely divided. If one asks 'why so finely divided?' one does get to a question that is worth answering. Pros feel that a difference of a 'third of a stone' is something palpable in play, and that's the old theoretical step in going up one dan (professional).



This is a copy of the living page "Rating" at Sensei's Library.
(OC) 2003 the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.