![]() StartingPoints Paths Referenced by
|
Rank - Worldwide - Discussion
Niklaus: Isn't the "unit" of the ranking system supposed to be handicap stones? So the only difference between the different scales should be where you set the bar for 30k (or 29k, since everybody below is 30k), and that difference should be the same on every level onwards? Most of the chart above is more or less consistent, but there are some areas (such as IGS double digit kyus and Japanese high dans), where the "unit" seems to be more or less than one handicap stone. amc: I have a question about ranking. I know that "theoretically" a difference in one rank is equal to one stone, right? But what does this mean exactly? Does it mean that two players of different ranks playing lots of games with the appropriate amount of stones should split the results 50/50? But if this is so, isn't this more or less easy to determine? What exactly causes the differences between the different ranks? (servers, regional association, etc.) Answer (Charles Matthews): Yes, it is assumed that for purposes of playing handicap games the correct rank difference is the number of stones to give 50-50 results, while one stone too many or too few will give more like 67-33. There is some bias for small numbers of stones in that a two-stone handicap is more like 1.5 stones in practice. The observed difficulties in cross-calibration of ranking systems will stem from a number of factors, such as: different pools of players worldwide not strongly interacting; lack on some servers of handicap games played; styles and depth of thought being different for quick server games and tournament play. W: What about differences in style? I do not think a linear rating system will ever be completely accurate. I am sure there are cases of players A, B, and C, where A can give B two stones and play even, B can give C two stones, and C can give A two stones, if the styles of play and focus of learning are different enough. How would you rate such players easily? Or do these situations not occur at higher ranks? anonymous-- At best ratings measure some sort of average performance over all go players in some large group so there is no certainty and no contradiction about how two individuals would play based on their ratings.
Could anybody please explain what GoR? is? It is used in Andrew Grant: GoR refers to the European Go Rating system, which is similar to the Elo ratings used in chess. The results of every European go tournament are sent to the organisers of this system (in the Czech Republic), who enter them into their computer which analyses the results and produces a ranking list every month giving the current rating of every player in Europe who has played in a tournament recently. Traditional kyu / dan grades are meant to be 100 points apart on this system: 2050 is an average shodan, 1950 is an average 1 kyu, 1850 equates to 2 kyu, and so on. You can access this list from the EGF website. Hans: One small correction. An average first dan has 2100 points, an average 1 kyu 2000, etc. At least this is stated in the introduction to the system on the site:
Andrew Grant: Sorry, but this is wrong. It was true when the GoR system was set up but grades have inflated since then. This month (September 2003) the average GoR of European players claiming to be shodan is 2048. gimpf: That's something I didn't understand when reading the EGF docs... I thought, the dan-kyu grades are given in respect to the rating - but when looking at the ranking-list of all the players, grades seem to be given a little bit at random :) Why is the rank not steadily changed according to the rating? Stefan: The ranking list doesn't give grades. It merely lists what grade the player used in the last tournament. Taking my own name as an example: I am "officially" a 2k in Belgium, I registered in the last tournament I played as a 1k (for stiffer competition) and my points are what they are. Andrew Grant: In answer to gimpf, kyu / dan grades don't necessarily reflect GoR ratings because the EGF has no power to compel players to play at any particular grade. Nor should they have this power. People should be free to play at whatever grade they wish. And to follow up my answer to Hans, ranking inflation is inevitable in any system such as the GoR rankings, unless steps are taken to counteract it. The problem is that at any one time there will be a significant number of fast-improving players, but few players who are declining in strength, and those will only be declining slowly. Most players' strengths are static. So if a few players' GoR ratings are increasing rapidly that is paid for by a slow decrease in the GoR ratings of the established players. Of course, the established players aren't really getting weaker. They're just being beaten en route by keen young players on their way to greater things. But the effect is to lower their GoR ratings just the same. Hans: I understand that the rankings are slowly inflating because of fast improving players. Nonetheless a player who enters the rating list as a first kyu is given an initial rating of 2000. Besides they have built in a small factor, called e, in order to prevent the rank inflation, resp. rate deflation (depending on the way you look at it) (The details can be found in the description where the calculation of the new ratings is explained). Malweth: I recently played in my first AGA tournament. I'm a 9-kyu KGS and was told to register as 7-kyu AGA... are others seeing this trend, namely a 2-stone difference in the 5-15 kyu range?
I use the following formula for those below 4kyu Real Life = 4 + (0.75*(KGS -4)) this seems vaguely accurate This is a copy of the living page "Rank - Worldwide - Discussion" at Sensei's Library. ![]() |