Kata Liana: Sorry - I did not mean to "lump" you into the people who have said they will not play players that are rated a lot lower then they are - I guess I mistook when you wrote "I will only play high rated opponents now."

And yes, I agree that people who get a high rating then stop playing to "protect" their rating are pretty bad also, Fencer has already taken steps to clear some of those players (some which have left the site) from the rating list.

alanback: Yes, that's correct. The examples should have said something like "Taking 16 matches" rather than "After 16 matches".

If I had a BKR simulator I could do the numbers properly but .... yes again, the conclusion is correct because the bias exists no matter what the two players' ratings are. The point being that the higher rated player cannot maintain a level against the opponent unless they win highly unrealistic numbers of games - way beyond chance.

The ELO Bg formula, once understood, is actually very elegant. (Though, to a non-mathematician like myself, that elegance has to be studied to get it into the brain, lol). One of the key points is that it maintains the rating difference between two players who are playing consistently at their respective skill levels. The idea is that a player at 2000 is going to win, for example, 56% against than an 1800er; so is the 1800er against a 1600er; and so too the 1600er against a 1400er. It's the difference of 200 that matters, not the ratings themselves.

The formula is a feedback loop that awards points according to this rating difference such that over time the resulting rating difference reflects the actual performance difference. The winner and loser both adjust by the same amount but the amount is greater if the loser wins. This ensures that the players stay at the same difference when playing consistently but ensures that they converge when the lower rated one plays consistently beyond their rated ability. Yet only to a given point - the point where their win rate in relation to the other is predicted by the new rating difference.

As an example, say the 2000er were to play only the 1600er in a lot of matches but the 1600er was winning 44% (ie. something expected of the 1800er). The two ratings would converge until they were 200 points apart (1900 and 1700) and then stay that way - the rating difference now accurately reflecting the performance difference.

I'm not enough of a maths-head to picture how your proposal would work [I'd have to write a program to show me how it works - or you can. ] but I don't think it would create the negative feedback effect. It also wouldn't have the same comparability (eg. difference of 200 = 56%:44% wins), though that may or may not be a disadvantage.

playBunny: Your examples do not take into account the ratings adjustments that would occur after each match -- presumably the point loss would be smaller each time your rating decreased (and the opponent's rating increased). However, I'm not convinced that your conclusion isn't right; we will have to see what comes out of the process. Since Fencer will always have the database of past results, it will always be possible to introduce a different formula if this one proves unworkable.

I always thought the ELO formula was unncessarily complex, though complexity counts for little in a computerized world. What about a formula that awarded a winner a number of points equal to C x (r/R), where C is a constant (such as 4), r is the loser's rating, and R is the winner's rating? The loser would subtract the same number of points. There could be a minimum adjustment (such as 1) and a maximum (such as 10).

It used to be when I played someone a game of Backgammon and we were within a few hundred points of each other in rating we'd be playing for 8 rating points. Now there's this sliding scale and I find it completely unfair to the higher rated player. I will never be able to play a higher rated player that cares about his rating on this site because how disadvantageous the odds are now. Someone that's 300 points above me risks 14 rating points to my 2! This is nowhere near the odds of my actual chance of winning. It may not 1 to 1, but it can't be 7 to 1.

Can we please have a ratings system for Backgammon that reflects the odds of winning and keeps in mind that there's luck involved? This disparity will further segegrate the Backgammon playing community or will encourage people to not play rated games at all. I can see having a big difference in the points awarded if we were playing a match to 10 wins or game points, but to have it like this for a single game is ridiculous.

This change is fair in all the skill-only games but in anything to do with luck this new system will always pull the highest of two players down regardless of who they play. This will cause a general flattening of the ratings and make them less meaningful.

As shown in the examples below, the formula won't balance the ratings at a point where they reflect the respective skill levels but will continue to penalise the higher rated player until both ratings are equal!

This is the case for everybody whatever their rating and whatever their skill level. In any set of matches against the same opponent, whichever player is the the higher rated of the pair will always go down more than they can possible earn - because luck will not allow them to earn what the formula says they should be capable of.

BIG BAD WOLF: It's worse than that my friend. As a top 5 player it is against my interests to play outside the top 20 if I want to protect my rating. A system that makes that kind of thing even thinkable is not a good one.

In a fair system I'd be happy to play anybody, literally. With the widely used ELO Bg formula, if I were playing a single match against a beginner then I'd earn 1.25 points and lose 2.75 points. My share of the 4 available points would be about 30%. But I'd tend to win about 70% of the time so it would balance out. We'd both stay at our ratings, neither gaining nor losing over the long term.
That's what the formula is supposed to do - maintain the status quo when players are playing true to their rating.

Against an average player I'd earn 1.5 or lose 2.5 but I'd win less often - about 60% - which again makes it balance out.

A fair system doesn't penalise higher rated players when the lose against lower rated ones - the wins make up for it. Under such a system the best protection for your rating is to study the game and play it well.

But, back to BrainKing:

With this new formula I'd win 1 BKR point and lose 15 against the beginner. I'd still only win 70% of matches so ..
After 16 matches I'd have gained 11 x 1 = 11 points.
Yet I'd have lost 5 x 15 = 75 points.
I'm down 64 points - penalised for only having won what is reasonable.

In the proper system it would be win 11 x 1.25 = 13.75 and lose 5 x 2.75 = 13.75. Balance.


Against the average player I'd win 2 BKR points or lose 14. I'd still win 60% so ..
After 16 matches I'd have gained 10 x 2 = 20 points
But would have lost 6 x 14 = 84 points.
Again down 64 points.

In the proper system it would be win 10 x 1.5 = 15 and lose 6 x 2.5 = 15. Balance.


Against a top 20 player I'd win 6 BKR points or lose 9. This time I'd only be expected to win 55% of the matches.
After 16 matches I'd have gained 9 x 6 = 45 points
But I'd lose 7 x 9 = 63 points.
So even against someone closely matched I'd be losing 18 points just for winning only as many as expected.

In the proper system it would be win 9 x 1.75 = 15.75 and lose 7 x 2.25 = 15.75. Balance.

BIG BAD WOLF: It seems just as silly to get a ridiculously high rating in a particular game too, and then quit playing that game to "protect" your high rating. I guess if you can view it that way, the other scenerio can be viewed the same way.

For me it doesn't change much anyway, i prefer to play in the higher only tourney bracket, because the games are more challenging. I won't "purposly not play low rated players" because i'm not to bothered if there are lower rated players in the tourney. And as for teh "protection" of my higher rating.. tis a load of cobblers LOL, i've played people of high or low ratings since i joined the site, and it has still remained reletively high.

BIG BAD WOLF: I think before you speak you better not lump all people into that statement. I played "whoever", it didn't matter if I played a high rated player or a low rated player. My rating got high because of the amount of games I won - nothing to do with who I played. In the beginning - most of the people I played were lower rated players. So don't lump everyone into your little statement there.

Eriisa: It is kind of funny. They played against higher rated players to gain their high ratings, and then to see some turn and purposly not play low rated players just to "protect" their high ratings - seems kind of silly doesn't it.

Eriisa: Maybe they need to rethink the rating system then for backgammon. It was fine the way it was before, I had no problem with it then. I joined all tournies then. With the change, you are really penalized.

It seem silly though Eriisa to be able to gain 1 point (if that) yet lose 50 or whatever, i just lost a game of tablut and went down over 100 points and the ratings were only 250-300 apart anyway.

Kata Liana: That would be a shame if all high rated players played like that. The lower rated ones would never grow!

That's what i was thinking to myself earlier, a lot more high rated only tournements i think i'll be joining.

arpa: that is why I will only play high rated opponents now. You have a couple bad rolls and your losing a lot of rating. I still have games with low rated players going, but with the new rating system, will only be playing higher rated players. at least then I am only losing by 10 or so points, and will win enough games that I can maintain my rating.

dice are evil

dice are fickle

THE HIT MAN: I maintain the dice roller should be destroyed painfully, but he /she keeps coming back LOL

playBunny: Whenever i play a player in any backgammon game with a rating of 2000 or more.they always win the dice roll.LOL does this come with LUCK

BB: Aye. Hypergammon has a higher luck component than Backgammon. How do you quantify the luck in Battleboats? There's a small but discernable degree of luck in Dark Chess. Different formulas for each would be appropriate.

But just two - the Chess one for games of pure skill and the Backgammon one for games with chance in them - that would be a good compromise and easy to implement.


As an example:
A top player here (BKR 2540) plays a single match against someone of 2400 points. It will be a gain of +5 for a win and a drop, -11, for a loss. That means that the higher player must win 2 out of every 3 games. Such a small rating difference does not reflect such a degree of difference in skill. In the example given the two players are well matched. The lower rated one has won 9 matches so far and the higher player has won 8.

Using the well established Backgammon formula (top player's rating at 2100 and lower player at 2000) the points would be 1.88 for a win and -2.12 for a loss. That ratio better reflects the skill differential: 52.9% winning chance for the higher player, 47.1% for the lower (and the points in inverse proportion).

Also noteworthy is that the match itself, being a single pointer, is only worth 4 points in total rather than being worth 16 as in the BKR example.

I hope it is clear from the example above that the Chess formula is unfair - and this is of a top 5 player playing a top 20 opponent!

When it comes to a high rated player against a much lower player, say a player 300 points lower (which is still top 70 and a strong opponent), the formula makes it highly punitive. A drop of 14 points for a loss and only 2 gained by a win! That means the higher player must win 7/8 matches just to stay even. There is no way that a 300 rating point difference can be justified by that.

Even against an average player, and Reza gives himself as an example, the top player will lose a substantial percentage of games because of the Dice Gods. (The Backgammon formula predicts 30%). The Chess formula's ratio of -14:+2 and worse will make higher ratings plummet as a result of normal losses in tournament matches - and that's a good reason to feel wary about joining them.

arpa: Yes, many people will agree with that.

The rating system that is currently on BrainKing is a system that is used for Chess - or games that use a lot of "skill", and very little luck.

But when you get into games like Backgammon which still takes skill to play good, but luck is added into it - then the "skill" rating system does not work as well.

Then when you get into even more "luck" games like battleboats, then the "skill" rating system really does not work.

There was been talk before by other users (with more knowledge them me) of different rating systems which would work good for different games.... But I'm not sure if Fencer wants to mess with a lot of different rating systems for a lot of different games.... even though in my opinion, it would be a good thing.

arpa: I agree with that. I with a BKR of 1800+ but not yet 1900 can win a player whose BKR is 2500+ in backgammon. As I have once dfeated Rex Nihilo. He's a great player but if it's my lucky day, I can win. If he loses a lot of BKR, it just encourages him not to play me any more.

In other games it's fair, but in Backgammon and Hyperbackgammon, I think not.

maybe you could try to figure out a solution for that my dear Fencer?

Regards

It does not appeal to the new way to me to calculate the BKR. the stronger players are a lot penalized and if 100-150 difference is one points forgiveness a lot rating. I nearly had arrived beyond the 2500 points in backgammon (modestly and with hard work against all) and in little time I have lost 160 points (watches my diagram).
Type can go well for chess or similars but absolutely not for the backgammon where the player with a rating of 1500 can strike one with 2600.
Therefore one stimulates the strong players not to play!!!

oh rose..geez ,I though we were in the general board

chupacabraVS2: Maxxina isnt trying to be tough police. There is a general discussion board for jokes and funny images ( and a jokes board for that matter). This board is for the features etc in BK. Please read the top of each discussion board before getting rude with ppl who are only trying to be nice and let you know it is off topic.

get a life bud,the though police thing is a little dated don't you think?

ehm nothing against but thats OFF TOPIC

Vikings: your hairball...lol


http://www.photohome.com/pictures/animal-pictures/wildlife/orangutan-1a.jpg

Vikings: ya think?

http://www.strangecelebrities.com/images/content/104594.jpg

Vikings: LMAO

nobleheart: I think that you have mistaken that formula with the formula for level 6 burnt auburn hair color

pauloaguia: Sorry for the delay, been busy at work. I like backgommon, although I haven't played in a few years. Feel free to send an invite if you'd like!

nobleheart: LMAO at that! That looks like the way I would have done it myself!

nobleheart: LMFAO

tycho:

reza: Thank you reza!

tycho: Go to their profile, and choose to be shown the players' games with you only.

Is it possible to find easily the games that you have played with somebody?

nobleheart:

nobleheart: LMAO!!!

Doerdich: how BKR's are calculated:
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/holography/web_pics/blackboard-W00.jpg

I have a question about the BKR: How is it calculated?

Jason: http://brainking.info/service.html
But it's a little outdated.

where can i find a list of customer sevice people ?

Goodfoods and his wife went through hurricane Katrina.. their house withstood the winds.. they lost lots of trees.. and due to the power surges lost their A/C and their Refridge and Freezers.. amongst the smaller appliances.. which those smaller ones he says can be replaced easier.. he did mention though.. the larger appliances are a bit harder to afford at this time..

If any of you would like to help donate even 5 or 10 dollars would be of a great help.. and when we have reached the goal of getting him his needs perhaps the extra money can go to someone else in his area.. :)

TT and I, amongst others are anxious to help.. so please contact one of us privately to find out how you can help him and his family..

Thankies

Maybe we should continue this over on the Chess discussion board

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=6

For Horde Chess:

1)Allow the Hordes' Pawns to move one or two steps from any square on their half of the board. As usual, allow "in passing" captures. This small change might be enough to change the balance of power.

2)Adding more Pawns might work as suggested by kkkeeek.

3)How about adding a King to the Horde, but still require the chess set to capture every Pawn and then checkmate the lone King? The King could be checked and captured if not moved out of check, but not checkmated until the last Pawn is captured. If he is checkmated but still has one or more Pawns left of the Horde, it will be a win for the Horde.

I think idea 1 would be the most workable and easiest to impliment. If it proved to give the Horde an advantage it might have to have some modifications made to it, like only allow each Pawn the two step move if they're on the second row or haven't individually been moved if on the third or fourth row. It'd certainly give the Horde some more options just being able to move two steps from the third and fourth row. Would it be enough to offset the chess set's advantage though. How's 'bout some beta testing? Fencer could you set up a section of this site for play testing some of these games or rules changes that people come up with?

Idea 3 would change the nature of the game and probably wouldn't be Horde Chess any more. All the same, how many times would the Horde have prevailed if it just had a little more power on the board to tip the scale a little towards it? The King is the weakest of the chess pieces and still the symbolic leader of the troops. This idea could work also if you just added the King as an extra piece and didn't treat his capture as any different than losing a Pawn and required the chess set to capture all the Pawns and the King in any order. If it isn't enough to tip the power, perhaps two Kings could added? Put them in the space on the back row? Or maybe add a Knight? I'd start with just adding one King and see what happens to the winning statistics, especially if the added King is treated as just another piece on the board. That should be an easy addition to the game.

Maharajah Chess

1) Adding a second Maharjah seems like giving to much power to the Maharajah's side. Especially if the Maharajah side can continue on in the game after losing one of the Maharajahs. I suppose it'd need testing. If it proves too powerful, a weaker piece could be tried. I'm amazed the Maharajah wins almost 30% percent of the games here. It obviously is a strong piece that can checkmate by itself without back up. Just adding a Rook to its side might be more than enough to balance its chances out. It could lose the Rook and continue on, but the Maharajah would be like the King and lose the game if checkmated.

2) How about adding a row of Pawns to the Maharjah's side? That should help slow down the advance of the chess set's pieces. And, as with the Chess Set's side, no promotions.

2¢

Hi,
usually only symmetrical games are balanced, because it is very difficult to figure out which arrangent is equal when there are different start positions or different pieces. But, sometimes I think also symmetrical games can extremly favour one side (usually white). One example: In Three Check Chess I think white is much better and black has a very difficult game...

Pedro Martínez:
2 ideas:
A) Checkmate one Maharajah (or 2 if possible).....
B) Capture both Maharajah's (with check being valid or not).......

I don't know which is better.....

Pedro Martínez: capture you and the other maharajah

Pythagoras: What would be the goal of the game for the black if there were two maharajahs?