Rating mappings and playing styles

   

This discussion was originally under FaceToFaceVsInternetGo


OK, something is really frustrating me in this department. I've started just recently to attend club nights and by everyone's best estimation, I am around 8 kyu AGA. Yet for some reason, on IGS, I can't ever seem to bump my rating any higher then 18k* no matter how high I start. Any thoughts?

Evpsych: Maybe your club plays similarly to your previous opponents. Maybe IGS has a new set of strengths that nails you because you never had to fight them before.

HolIgor: I reckon that your friends from the club rate you more on the quality of your judgement than on the actual win/loss ratio. The number of games played in the club is not that big compared to the number of games on the Internet. I'd say that your understanding of the game in general is higher than your performance because either of come gaps that manifest themselves when the number of games is higher or a tendency to add some serious blunders to sound moves. Look through the records of the games you lost and try to find where the weakness is. It might be a different mistake each time, but a mistake nevertherless. In that case you just have to learn to keep your concentration. It might be that the reasons of the losses are closely related. You might be blind to some tesuji that your opponents practice on you or you might miss your opportunities.

Improvement of the undestanding of the game will give you a lot too. Even AGA 8k is not that great, you know. But that improvement comes slowly. For me this means that the crucial moments of the game, the moments where the game is decided move closer and closer to the opening and ending. Fuseki moves start to acquire elasticity, become more forcing. At the same time the game becomes more and more the game of precision. The number of "good" moves goes down.

--Actually, they rate me 8k on account of my severe beating of 9k players, and close 4 handicap wins against a 5k. I can't possibly believe there is an 8 stone difference between AGA and IGS....

HolIgor: Do these guys do better than you on IGS? If so, then you are more comfortable with real stones and goban.

BillSpight: The IGS rating system is notoriously inaccurate at the double digit kyu level, as I have heard. As I understand it, there are a couple of reasons for this. First, there are relatively few handicap games, and the only standard is at the top. Thus, the further you get from the top of the ratings, the more room there is for your rating to float. A fairly large group of players can have their ratings based mainly on their games with each other, and can be, as a group, stronger than their ratings indicate. Second, the system makes insufficient provision for improvement, especially the rapid improvement that frequently occurs at lower levels. Third, the ratings are, by definition, not pegged to handicaps. This seems to have resulted in there being more levels between players of different strength than handicap stones. That is one reason that stronger players avoid giving handicaps on IGS. They are likely to lose. Also, players whose ratings have not kept up with their improvement start new accounts. Both of those human reactions tend to perpetuate the problems with the rating system.

BlueWyvern: More on this subject.... So I got fed up not being able to get above 19k* and I made another account, and started playing. I set it to 10k, given that my club rating is about 9k or 8k, and IGS is supposed to be stronger. I play a game against an 11k*, and what do you know, I win by 25.5. I thought it was a fluke, I had white, and we both made some pretty dumb mistakes despite the long time limit. So I play a 9k*, and this time there are no obvious mistakes by either player, and I win by 42.5 stones! What is going on? I'm starting to get the feeling that IGS ratings are somewhat arbitrary and muddled.

HolIgor: I believe that the notion that one can open a 30k account and make to 1d in reasonable time on IGS is unreallistic. The number of games required to progress by one level is at least 20 and actually you can't win all your games because of netlag, time, disconnections and so on. Due to this fact the guys that open 30k account and learn to play become sanbaggers very soon. I think that there should be a pool of underrated players at the level about 20k and yet another at the level of about 15k.

The reason is that they learn to play faster than the system can promote them. The solution is simple. One has to open a new account and most people do it.


Comment: That's not a solution. The solution is to change the rating system. If you have to resort to opening a new account, complain loudly to IGS. --BillSpight


I would recommend anyone who comes to IGS to overrate himself and then go down to the true level. It is painful to lose, I know, but at the same time the games are much more fun.

By the way, two games are indicative but your level can be lower yet. Do you know how many losses it will take for you to go down to 20k*? I think that sooner you'll learn to play at the level at least of 5k* :).

BlueWyvern: I'll agree on the more fun part. Part of the reason I think I keep ending up getting knocked down is I've ended up playing games that I've lost all interest in by the 10th move because my opponent is playing moves that I don't see how any self respecting go player could play. In fact a couple of times, I've just flat out resigned, rather sit through a game I could probably win with an opponent who plays like an idiot. By idiotic moves, an example is, you'd be surprised, how many 16,17, and 18k*s will play the 5-3 point AS AN APPROACH TO THE STAR POINT! And then there are the players who fight and fight, and invade far to early, just to start a fight, and invade far too deep, just to start a fight and suddenly the game has lost all of its charm.

DieterVerhofstadt: I agree that 5-3 against 4-4 is a bad move, since it invites the opponent to reinforce himself and weaken your stone (see BasicInstinct 8). Imagine the Hane at the Head of Two Stones next and the disadvantage is apparent. I wouldn't go as far though as calling it an idiotic move and if someone plays it against me, I'll rather get interested than bored. I once saw a 4d* game in which move #2 was an attachment, and it certainly didn't lose the game (cf. Kajiwara). ContinueWhileDozensOfPointsBehind, for instance, is something that bothers me much more. A bad corner approach at least has some meaning, although badly executed.

HolIgor: I believe that beginners have to try it all. It is OK to play unreasonable invasions till you learn to distinguish between reasonable, risky and unreasonable invasions. At the same time your opponent profits by learning to rebut aggression calmly. If this kind of play annoys you, then you became stronger even if your official rating cannot follow the change.

And it is good for the beginners to play to the end even if the score is not close. They have to learn to play yose. Of course, this attitude is annoying at the level of single-digit kyu. But don't consider the game won if there is life in it yet.

I remember that once somebody shouted on IGS. "Why can't I convert a lead into a win when playing against 4d?" That was not my level but incedently I knew the answer: "Because you want to win too fast". The guy replied: "That's correct".

DieterVerhofstadt: (we're going off topic, but ...) I agree with these comments, except for the one that it is OK to play to the end. In my humble opinion, yose loses all of its meaning (such as the concept of mutual damage) when the game is decided, so you're not going to learn anything from it. I'm talking about dozens of points, really. Under these conditions I start playing deliberately slackly and conservatively, to show my opponent that it really doesn't matter anymore and that he should better resign.


BlueWyvern: A couple of things... First of all, I was under the impression that certain classes of moves which are not very good, just as the 5-3 approach to the 4-4, or rediculously deep unreasonable invasions are the types of plays that one should not be playing once they reach say about 20k or so. In fact, almost every beginners book I read discusses "Invasion vs. Reduction", and the suckiness of being hit on the head. Perhaps I have been misjudging my level all along though.

This brings up another thought. When I play at the lower levels, people tend to get embroiled into violent fights early on, something I find almost painful to do when there are so many big points left on the board. The usual trend seemed to be a big fight, then when I gain sente, I play elsewhere, then my opponent starts another violent fight, rinse repeat. Though I'd usually win, it sometimes wasn't by much, a I'd get frustrated and board with the style of play, as the fuseki is definitely my favorite part. Since I've started playing at a higher level and I've been able to play a coherant fuseki, I've been throttling people left and right. My last two matches for instance were against 9k*'s and I beat both of them by over 40 points. This is after I'd been putzing around 15k-20k* for a couple of months, frustrated with the quality of play, yet somehow unable to improve.

The main point about this thought is I'm having a really hard time getting a grasp on just how strong I am. I feel bad playing even games against weaker players, and also it'd be nice to play people exactly on my level. And also on a deeper level, just how good is the rating system, as a large part of my strength seems to be dependant on fuseki, and when I'm denied that, I don't play as well.


DieterVerhofstadt(1k EGF): If you have been beating 9k* players, then your level must approximately be 5k European - at least if they weren't 1 kyus that got stuck at IGS 9k ;). That rank is confirmed by the fact that you have some ideas about reducing and invading, which I believe is not stuff for beginners books.

The stronger I get, the more I realize - but there are those who disagree - that skill at fuseki is wiped away by weaknesses in other areas, such as fighting skill, basic techniques and knowledge of life and death shapes. Sometimes I feel that I'm playing a coherent fuseki, but I also strongly feel that the benefit of it is rather having a good feeling than having a higher chance of winning the game.

See also Go and tennis.

BlueWyvern: My frustration isn't with the fact that I can't fight such opponents, my frustration is that in doing so the game becomes tedious and boring and not an enjoyable way to spend my time. I've noticed at a higher level, I actually get to think and consider more complicated and interesting positions and too see real interesting and clever moves by my opponent. This is my idea of an enjoyable game, not answering rediculous and reckless moves with plays that require very little imagination or ingenuity. I also find that I find the shape of the board more aesthetically pleasing at the higher levels. In short, what I'm saying is, my frustration stems from the fact that the high kyu playing style detracts from my enjoyment of the game. When that happens, suddenly I'm only playing to win, to increase my rating, because I'm really not taking any pleasure from playing. I'd much rather have a pleasant game, even if I lose, then to win a boring game.

TakeNGive: Hi Wyvern. By now your rating has more or less stabilized, I hope. If you're still seeing ridiculous, reckless plays that spoil the flavor of the game, you can always pass one move. I've seen strong players in teaching games do this, but I haven't seen it on the internet. If you try it, let me know how it works out.

Velobici: BlueWyvern, IGS is its own type of place. Its very nice for folks rated 1k* and higher. There the ratings are reasonably accurate and the resulting games are in accord the with expectations of the players. Below 5k* or so, IGS is a fustrating experience. The ratings systems fails to fulfill its primary purpose which is allowing people to find reasonable matches. If you are not playing at or near 1k*, consider playing elsewhere.

I couldn't agree more Velobici. A "20k" IGS player with 2000 games played is a farce - truly ridiculous. These terribly inaccurate ratings at the lower levels makes it nearly impossible to get a reasonable match on IGS. I no longer play there unless I have an "experimental strategy" to try out.


This is a copy of the living page "Rating mappings and playing styles" at Sensei's Library.
(OC) 2007 the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About