Fencer: With the greatest respect, and judging from the excellent input from so many wise backgammon players who have made contributions to this discussion, it would be a HUGE pity if Maxxina was indeed right. Such a flawed rating system for backgammon is not likely to endear the backgammon population to this rating system.

Somebody recently spoke of "contempt" for backgammon players, and I can only agree. There has been a huge delay in implementing the long-promised "pro-backgammon", and no action at all on the bug (play both dice if possible, and if impossible, play the higher die) which has been acknowledged for well over two years, and which has been the subject of numerous acrimonious discussions for a long time. This latest lack of acknowledgement of the deficiencies of the rating system for backgammon is almost the last straw.

I hear all the accolades and statements about "how busy Fencer is" and "what a great site" and I concur - but you are running a business, and running a business means KEEPING THE CUSTOMERS HAPPY.

Now I am one of those customers, and I joined BK as a paying member in the hope that my support would help to get some of the deficiencies corrected. I have waited patiently for that to happen for about two years, and there has been no action. I have been perfectly content to support BK and your business in the belief that there would be some action in addressing the deficiencies in the implementation of my favourite game, but I am rapidly losing confidence that anything will actually change.

My feeling at the moment is that unless I can see some concrete evidence of some REAL progress towards implementing some of these much-promised enhancements to the backgammon experience. I will not be renewing my subscription when it falls due. I imagine there will be many more backgammon
players who feel the same as I do. I trust that you will have sufficient non-backgammon players to keep the business viable.

Jason: Maxxina is right.

Jason - What can i tell and see on czech board . YEAA THIS IS A FINAL VERSION !!

Have you done messing with the bkrs once and for all now ? everytime you play with them, i get further down the scale . to me it looks like all games i have played and won a few points from have now taken points away lol.
It just seems everytime i get to a position that im happy with you play with bkrs and i lose 60+ positions

It doesn't seem to be possible to create a tournament of multiple-point matches. That is, one in which each player would play the other a 3-point match, for example. Am I missing something?

playBunny: The 100 points was what A and B agreed the game was worth ... if they had agreed 200 points then the 3 results would have been:
A wins - A goes to 2050, B goes to 1450.
Draw - A goes to 1950, B goes to 1550.
B wins - A goes to 1850, B goes to 1650.

The purpose is to make it worthwhile for the better rated player to actually play the game. I have games now (particularly in Tank Battle) where I will either stay the same (if I win) or go down if I draw or lose. Hardly an incentive to play as there will always be a game or two you will draw or make a silly mistake and draw. As you say, possibly not sufficiently independant to be a rating system.

AbigailII: I understand what you are saying about being unratable without a draw or loss (likewise someone who only ever losses is also unratable) ... no doubt it is to do with trying to divide by zero. But it is not that they exceed the rating system, it is that they are outside it! Maybe they should not be even given a provisional BKR until they do have a contrary result or have reached the stage where they have completed 25 games and can get an established rating. I know of only one or two players here who are so exceptional in their particular game types that their would warrant such a high rating from scratch.

So here is another suggestion ... A player's rating may never be more than say 10% higher than the highest player they have beaten or equal with the highest player they have drawn with. This would encourage them to play the higher rated players and they would not be able to obtain unmerited BKR levels by playing moderate players.

WQ:)

I'm not sure what function the 100 has in the following. It doesn't seem to affect the resulting ratings.
They agree the game is worth 100 points
If A wins - A gets 100 (+25 now 2025) B gets 0 (-25 now 1475).
If a draw - A gets 50 (-25 now 1975) B gets 50 (+25 now 1525).
If A loses - A gets 0 (-75 now 1925) B gets 100 (+75 now 1575).


But that aside, it's an interesting idea.

I'd start, though, by saying that it's not a rating system. The purpose of ratings is to be able to compare players (as accurately as the model will allow). The model should be self-consistent, ie. there should be no player input required or allowed.

By having players agree to varying amount that they "put up on offer", (or bet? lol) - is to have a currency system where the "rating" is more like a purse or wallet. That's actually an attractive idea which could work in parallel with real ratings. At TrueMoneygames you can play Backgammon for money. But they also have the concept of play money for those who like safe betting. I was watching a player the other day who had amassed an amazing $1,000,000 of this play money. (Given that games are $100 that's quite an achievement - very aggressive doubling seems to have been the key. He won 3200 in a single game because of this. But, lol, I digress..) The point is that risking a chosen amount of your points is fun but cannot be part of a rating system.

I agree with you that a smaller K factor for tournaments could help encourage higher rated players to join. I haven't given much it study in Chess because I'm a Backgammon man. I do believe that the best way to encourage Backgammon players to risk their rating in an open-to-all tournament is to use the proper formula, one which is fair to all players.

WhisperzQ: That depends on the results. In an ELO system, the true rating of someone how has won all games can't be determined - any rating will be an estimate that's too low. Ratings are not absolute, and they are certainly not points you collect over time by winning. Difference in rating gives an expectation of the outcome of a game (or series of games). A rating of 2600 means that it's expected someone wins 50% of the games against someone else of rating 2600 - and N% of the games against someone of rating 1200, of some value of N strictly less than 100. If someone has won all his games, even if there are only 4 games, he has exceeded all expectations of the rating system - and 2600 will even be too low.
<p>
Once again, there are reasons why there are provisional ratings, and why there are established ratings.

WhisperzQ: Maybe if the games were 4 wins against the top 4 players..but those would not be ordinary games. LOL.

AbigailII: Renaming the consequence does not solve the problem. Surely you do not think that a 2600 rating (by any name) after 4 ordinary games is right!

playBunny: While you were writing your latest note, I was also putting together my thoughts (interrupted by a few phones calls). I think the K factor is also a good idea, then a tournament, for instance could be set up to have K factors built in to encourage higher rated players to play and put less of their points at stake against lower rated players. Maybe a combination of both ideas?

Or another idea is that players could agree the number of points they will "put up on offer" (there would need to be a max.) at the beginning of the game and the respective splits they might get out a win draw and lose. An example might help:
A is rated at 2000.
B is rated at 1500.
The (historically) expected result from 100 games might be (for A) 70 wins/10 draws/20 losses.
They agree the game is worth 100 points (actually probably too much but lets move on).
A risks 70 + (1/2 of 10 = 5) 75 points.
B risks 20 + (1/2 of 10 = 5) 25 points.
If A wins - A gets 100 (+25 now 2025) B gets 0 (-25 now 1475).
If a draw - A gets 50 (-25 now 1975) B gets 50 (+25 now 1525).
If A loses - A gets 0 (-75 now 1925) B gets 100 (+75 now 1575).

WhisperzQ

WhisperzQ: But to be there in 4 (and sometimes way beyond) is, I believe, ridiculus.

That's why there's Established BKR. Perhaps if 'BKR' was named 'provisional BKR' and 'Established BKR' just 'BKR', people would stop having sleepless nights of someones BKR after four games.

BuilderQ: If the top players have only played say 50 or 100 games and they have say a 75% win rate then someone at a 90% win rate might only need 30-60 games. But to be there in 4 (and sometimes way beyond) is, I believe, ridiculus.

WhisperzQ: 200-300 games can take a long time to play in a turn-based environment. Many game types don't have any players who haved played that many games (eg Jungle, Fast Espionage, One Way Checkers).

Grim Reaper: Sumerian has only 29 counted games because three losses are by time out in one or two moves, so his score is +28=0-1.
The reason of Sumerian is the top of Gothic is the same by you are the top (very) provisional of chess : few counted games can be enough for get the highest rating.
Maths are beautiful!!

playBunny (and others): The problems with the BKR system are not limited to Backgammon ... that someone can play 4 games and have a rating of over 2600 is ridiculus ... even if they play against top opponents (which in a number of types of games they haven't).

A while back you gave a formula which I think would work excellently ... takes into account the relative abilities of both players and requires someone to work their way to the top if they are good enough. If it takes 200 or 300 games to get near the top then so be it, at leat then it is a true reflection on concerted effort, not an anomily in the system.

I play here for fun but I also play to have interesting hard competative games, ... I am, indeed, competative perosn by nature. I do not mind losing where I am soundly beaten, but I also like to have my abilities (or lack thereof) recognised and the BKR is one way to do that.

I think the current system stinks and has me, for one, now very disallusioned.

WhisperzQ

alanback: I'm wordy enough, so I only said 16 to keep things simple. ;-)

In the US Chess formula (Established rating section) there are bands defining how much a game is worth:

There is also a K factor that determines the number of rating points that can change hands as the result of a single match, and that depends to some extent on the player's rating: 32 for ratings from 0–2099, 24 for 2100–2399, and 16 for 2400 and up. (There are also so-called ½K and even ¼K events where the number of points that can change hands is reduced as the fractions suggest, that is, 16, 12 and 8, and 8, 6 and 4 respectively.)

I'd guess that different bands are in use here, but does that tie in with what you're seeing?

alanback: It could be 16 pts because you have played so many games, as I haven't played as many games say in nack as in backgammon the pts difference is in excess of 30

playBunny:

>>The new system is that the 16 points are now apportioned according to the rating difference.

I'm seeing adjustments in excess of 16 points in some games -- why should that be?

First, resigning on the first move doesn't count as a loss for rating purposes.

Second, besides the number of games that have been played, another factor is the ratings of those who were played... especially for the first few games. This has worked in my favour in Anti Line4. :)

from a player who can't post here because he's been banned:

"I was looking at the Gothic Chess ratings today after the recalculation was done.

We have a player with 28 wins and 4 losses being rated higher than a player with 157 wins, 3 draws, and 0 losses.

I won 129 more games than Sumerian, without losing, yet I am rated 32 points below him.

How is this possible?"

Pythagoras: or, if you meant "1500" things, here in the US we use a comma. 1,500.

but that's here in the US, where we do all *kinds* of backwards things.

Yeah, it's a bad habit of me putting a dot "." on integer numbers to make them more easy to read.......The correct rule is to put a space or nothing at all.......

Pythagoras: 1½ things a day, wow he gets a lot done. Aside from getting out of bed I rarely get 1 more thing done. :)

Yep, no one should complain to Fencer about delaying of taking actions. He has to do around 1.500 things per day. And that's only the Brainking-related one's......

Let us not forget how much we get from Fencer for little or no investment on our part!

Walter Montego: I agree.

playBunny: Yep, that sums it up. You seemed to have explained to me why I don't like this rating system when it's used for Backgammon. I didn't know the particulars of it, just that I don't like it and how it seems unfair to the higher rated players. I guess we'll just have to see how it goes for a few weeks. Your's and alanback's prediction for the lowering of the top people's ratings has come to pass. I too was lowered a little bit in Backgammon, but lost nearly 300 points off my Dark Chess rating! Dark Chess has a little bit of luck in it, but not the amount of Backgammon. I think this new or fixed rating system will be OK for Dark Chess, but it stinks for Backgammon. Fencer has Chess at heart and will get around to Backgammon when he has taken care of his other pressing affairs. Hopefully it is higher on his to do list than the laundry. :)

Pythagorus: The bug was that the points awarded for matches weren't variable according to the rating diference. Previously, playing someone within 400 points meant a gain or a loss for both players of 8 points and only 8 points.

The new system is that the 16 points are now apportioned according to the rating difference.

The first system favoured the higher-rated player (at whatever level, eg it would favour someone at 1600 playing someone at 1400).

The new system is correct for skill based games but for Backgammon it heavily favours the lower rated of the pair.

Both systems are flawed for Backgammon.

For backgammon:
At FIBS the average rating is 1500 and the top is 2000+.
At Vog the average ratings is 1600 and the top is about 2100.
Thus the top half of the playing pool is spread out over 500 points.

Here the average for backgammon is 2000! And the top players are at about 2200.
This squashes the top half of players into a mere 200 points. A ridiculously small range.

In Hypergammon the average is 1930 and the top 20 starts at 2100. A range of 170 points.

In Nackgammon it's average 1675 up to 1875 for #20 giving a range of 200.

Chess: Average 1675 to #20 at 2207. A range of 530.

It's a Chess formula. It works for Chess. It doesn't work for Backgammon.


alanback: The high preponderence of provisionals in the top 20 is a result of that squashing. The startup formula awards opponent's rating + 400 for a win. A new player need only win against a few average players and their rating will be 200 points higher than the top established players.


Fencer: A crazily high average and a squashed range? Provisionals who shoot way beyond the top just by beating average players? It's very flawed. I wish you didn't hold the Backgammon community in such contempt.

Maybe you and others don't think you do but it sure seems like it.

1] A serious (ie. it has caused much discussion and argument) bug which has been known about for over two years!. No action.

2] At least a small addition to the rules to alleviate the upset caused by the bug? Two years and no action..

3] Pro backgammon. No progress. No information. No visible action..

4] A proper rating system. No intention.

5] Your priority for these is "lower than average". Well, considering 1] and 2] it's way below average.

That's what I mean by contempt. And I'm not alone in wishing that it wasn't that way.

Pythagoras: The algorithm used by the system previously to compute BKR had a bug -- if the players' ratings were less than 400 points apart, then the winner's BKR adjustment was always +8 and the loser's was -8 regardless of which player won. The adjustments should be smaller if the higher-rated player wins, and larger if the lower-rated player wins.

If the ratings difference was larger than 400 points, the system formerly assigned negligible adjustments if the higher rated player won, and relatively large adjustments if the lower rated player won (I'm not sure this has changed!).

Now, the ratings adjustment is always larger if the lower-rated player wins than if the higher-rated player wins.

Formerly, if a high-rated player was careful to play only opponents whose ratings were within 400 points of his own, he was pretty much guaranteed that his rating would continue to rise as long as he won more than half his games. Now, it is very difficult to even maintain a high rating.

alanback: Yes, for example YOU, why especially Alaback's BKR dropped so much while others didn't........?
Fencer can you give an explanation for this? "Curious as always......."

What i see is that the BKR's have dropped significantly........Why is that? I know that the bug caused that, but what was the bug about?

pauloaguia: LOL! Actually I'm relieved that the recomputation didn't leave me down in the middle of the pack somewhere

sorry Filip, I have agitate the bee-hive without bad will. You and your staff make a great job anyway !!! THANK YOU

wellywales: and for the record darling, as u are well away the recent comment made by myself about the BKR was not directed at you at all, but u new that anyway, shame a certain somebody else idnt though. If she had scrolled right down the message board she would have seen exactly where it all started.

pauloaguia: There are many exceptional players in several game catagories,here!
It's one of the many reasons I joined.

pauloaguia:

alanback:
Or that they know how to choose their opponents.
Or that the site is attracting better players
Or that you have a grudge that you're number 6 and not in top 5 ;)

What does it indicate about the system, that 4 out of the top 5 backgammon players are pawns with low experience?

To me it indicates that the minimum experience for the definitive ratings is too low.

Princess Alison: now or Fencer will get annoyed

wellywales:

THE HIT MAN: Here , here, if i really wanted to know all this argy bargy about blinking rankings and BKR i would have asked a physcisisistissisitttt, ohhhhhhh u know what i mean LMAO

Princess Alison: Ark who's talking

Princess Alison: LOL Yes its only games we are playing here.To be ENJOYED AND TO HAVE FUN.I don,t think its a matter of LIFE OR DEATH

wellywales: As you can see, only 4 games are rated, the other ones were finished after the first move (not enough for rating).

Fencer: The reason I asked the top player of the provisional backgammon has played 4 games won 5 lost 9, how can that be

wellywales: The numbers in the brackers mean only rated games (wins/draws/losses), the total games can be increased by unrated games too.

In the Game ratings, is the Total games played the sum of the games in the brakets?

Fencer: Oh cool ! I am sure that in Pro backgammon the ratings will not be a problem any more.

nabla: The "pro backgammon" option seems to be the best, from my point of view. Because I will implement it anyway.