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.

<Luck is definitely a factor in the backgammon ratings but it is not *the* factor. As many said, the real factor is that with the same skill difference as in chess, the better player win percentage is a lot lower. But this has to do not only with luck, but also with the length of the game. For example, if the game of go was played here with the same rating system, you would soon see people over 3000, because in go you almost never win against a stronger opponent (while it still happens in chess).
The solutions could be :
1) Implement and play only "Pro backgammon", matches to e.g. 5 points with a doubling cube, which is a much better game anyway. But implementing that would probably be a lot of work for Fencer.
2) Tuning the Elo formula. In the Elo formula there is a constant of 400 which means that it requires a rating difference of 400 points to have a winning expectation of 10/11=90.9%. Changing the 400 to e.g. 600 would dilate the rating scale so that you are 600 points higher than your opponent instead of 400 when you win 90.9% of the games. But this is not a so great solution as it looks, because it requires for each game to estimate the relation "skill difference -> winning expectation", which can be done only in a somewhat arbitrary way as the "skill difference" is a subjective value.
3) Accept that because of the nature of one-game backgammon the rating scale will always be shrinked and that the rating differences must be taken as meaning a higher skill difference than you would expect !

Well, the new ratings are out and they are about what I expected them to be. With the ratings no longer inflated, the point differentials between winning and losing are also not as great as they were before. I think we can live with this.

playBunny: Yes.

Fencer: Even though Backgammon and variations constitutes the majority of games played here?

Well, as you might know, BrainKing is and always will be mostly focused on Chess, Checkers and similar non-dice games. I don't say I will never improve the rating formula for Backgammon and other dice games but the priority of this task is lower than average, at the moment.

rod03801: Because you didn't make any orders on Paid Membership or Store pages since I created the new shopping cart system.

When I click "My Profile", I now see a link for "Order list" next to edit and change password.. What is it?
When I click it, it says no orders listed..