![]() StartingPoints Aliases (info) Paths Referenced by
|
Rating
Rating shouldn't be aliased to rank, in the context of Go. DiscussionCharles 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.
Frs: I disagree. In the area of double-digit-kyus a rank isn't a title.
Charles: I would treat it that way. Anyone is entitled to disagree with me, of course.
Charles 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). John F. Also for the benefit of Frs, can I suggest the way to view the difference is that rank measures status, ratings measure performance. Status here means that you are acknowledged to have mastered a certain amount of knowledge consonant with a rank, so that if you are 1-dan but lose all your games (e.g. because you are old/ill/careless) you are quite possiby still a better teacher for a kyu player than a 4-kyu who wins all his games. In Japan the status aspect goes much further. You can't refer to just Kobayashi. You have to write Kobayashi 9-dan. From the pros' point of view it is important in that it determines teaching fees, where you play your games and your pension (would you like your pension to go up and down in line with your performance?). There was an almighty row in the shogi world 20 years or so ago when amateurs tried to introduce rating lists that included pros. It is highly unlikely that ratings will be used in the closed shops of Japanese or Korean pro go simply because there is no need for them. In China it was different: the huge size of the country meant that a more objective method was needed. Recall that Chinese ratings were introduced for a specific reason: to regulate access fairly to the lucrative international events. This is a copy of the living page "Rating" at Sensei's Library. ![]() |