alanback: I'm presently in the top 5 in all 5 positive gammon games, and there is nobody who is ahead of me in two of them. Anyone else have a better claim?

I have one: I claim that there is a number of years from now that both of us will would not be able to make any more claims....
While many can question your claim nobody can do the same with mine....

Chicago Bulls: I would amend your comment to say that eventually neither of us will care to make any claims, since we will have left ego behind; otherwise, I can't contradict you!

alanback: leaving on top is a good thing, but given a little bit of time(because I haven't completed as many games as yourself) I think I can make it into the top 5-10 players in 6 of 6 of the gammon variants(including anti-)
...and if not, the level you raised the bar to will be fun trying to accomplish...

LionsLair: dont worry, i will be there with you :)

(maybe i already was in the past ? ;))

LionsLair: I hope I am here long enough to see you accomplish your goal!

alanback: Well, I am not quite as good as you alanback, but I also hope to get there some day. I am top 30 in crowded, race, and hyper, but my backgammon and nackgammon rankings are rather low.

alanback: you can't leave, you aren't on top of all of your stairs

Vikings: hehe .. he will just tumble down head first ;)

alanback: it would seem fair to me that someone claiming the "top" would at least be #1 ranked in 1 of the variants. It appears to me you are not!! So I refute your claim. Your claim is a personal assessment of yourself and others and it not the perception of others. I would consider you "very very good" at best. Far far better than I

SafariGal: i wouldnt be surprised if he was #1 of one of them in the past though :)

SafariGal: Well, I asked for your opinion and you gave it. Thanks for your view. One reason for my posting was that I did feel somewhat deficient in not being #1 in any variant.

However, as has been pointed out, I have been in the #1 spot in most of them at one time or another in the past. Most recently I was #1 in Backgammon Race about a month ago.

alanback: Leaving on top? Well yes if you define top as the top 5. But no, if you define it to be number 1. If you define it as the best overall with statistics on Brainking then probably yes.....
If you define it generally then no, we don't know for sure.....

You said: "I have been in the #1 spot in most of them at one time or another in the past"
The point is: If you start reminiscing the past for successes then you are already history!

Anyway it's a shame you will leave, but oh well. You know better:-) Do you intend to return someday.....?

SafariGal: But what if no one ranked #1 in one game has sufficiently strong credentials in the others to be considered the best overall player? As it turns out, of the five top-ranked players, only arpa has established BKRs in all five games. Do you really consider 54th, 4th, 10th, 1st, and 24th better than 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 5th, and 4th?

One reasonable measure of overall strength might be average BKR across the five games. I doubt you'll find anyone who can top alanback's 2160.

KotDB: One reasonable measure of overall strength might be average BKR across the five games. I doubt you'll find anyone who can top alanback's 2160.

And what if someone has not played 3 variants for example? We will put 0 to calculate his mean BKR value? So i don't think this is a reasonable way.....
And to measure what...? Overall strength? How do you define overall strength......?

Chicago Bulls: No, not zero. The default BRK is 1300.

Yes, of course it's a question of definitions. This whole thread has essentially been about how to define overall strength in these five games. I've proposed one plausible quantitative definition. It's obviously not perfect; it inherits all the flaws of the BKR system, and it may have additional ones. I'm not convinced it's the best definition, but I haven't thought of one which is clearly better.

KotDB: Weigh the BKRs based on the number of games of each type played. That should give a decent BKR for all types. If a player has not played at least four (since that's what BK requires to have a rating in any game) games of each particular variant, then they would be unrated for purposes of this discussion and if they have not completed at least 25 games of each type, then they would be provisional. I'm not sure if anyone has completed enough games of all types, but perhaps someone else can look that up. ;-)

Thad: in december we had a somewhat similar list.

i dont think the 'show subject' link worked at that time already .. and i am not sure if alanback was on this site for real already :)

anyway here are 2 posts with lists :
http://brainking.com/nl/Board?bc=26&ngi=448298
http://brainking.com/nl/Board?bc=26&ngi=448120