diogenysos: I agree, a much better and fairer way to determine a winner

MadMonkey: yes.
Fencer - is this possible? 

diogenysos: I don't get the point about the points.

Fencer: The point about the points is that, with our existing system, there is "just" an 1:1-draw after two games.
If we counted the points within one game, it would make clear who won the single game "better".
E.g. in Mancala lets say white wins with 25:23 and in the second game the former black player wins, by the better strategy, with 28:20. Finally, the score of this 1:1-game would be 51:45 and a winner would be determined.

- This may be the fairer variant in some games with a visible advantage for one colour!

diogenysos: Could not of put it better myself

MadMonkey:



maybe we will find out in a while, with more experience, that the black mancala player has all jokers in his hands...

but the idea of counting the points still remains interesting...

diogenysos: Winning 28:22 instead of 25:23 doesn't mean you have a better strategy. Mancala isn't about scoring as many points as you can - just more than your opponent. It would make for a totally different game.

I don't think 'counting points' variations work as well for perfect knowledge games like mancala as for games as backgammon where there are unknown factors (die roles for instance).

AbigailII:

well, maybe i didnt come to the exact point by this explanation. just wanted to say that the 1:1 in a two-game-match is of disatvantage for the higher rated player. counting the points could solve this problem. in backgammon, its completely different and not to be compared ;-)

but for example in pah tum, or even in froglet, it could be interesting and fair, too, to count the points. -

maybe it should be offered just as another variant.
we can change time and match-settings, maybe there can be a "counted-points-match" as one more option.

diogenysos: Well, it *should* be a 'disadvantage'. That's the entire point of a rating system; if a higher rated player plays a lower rated player, his expected score is more than 50%. So, if the match ends 1:1, the higher rated player is expected to lose.

Your suggestion could lead to a 2000 rated player playing a 1000 rated player in a 2-game match, where the 2000 rated player winning the first game 26:22, losing the second game 25:23, and still getting his rating adjusted as a win.

That's not to say that I don't think the rating adjustment could not be improved. Currently, the potential of ratings isn't fully taken advantage of. Regardless of the length of a match, for rating adjustment, it's considered a win, a draw, or a loss. But ratings (at least, ELO ratings and their derivatives) predict an outcome. For instance, that the higher rated player ought to win a 10 game match by 7:3. If the higher rated player wins by 6:4, the higher rated player would actually lose points, while the lower rated player wins rating points, despite losing the match (because he did better than he should do according to his ratings).

AbigailII:

i totally agree on that idea that the higher rated player is expected to win more than 50%. its just too easy to get a draw in some games. this is why i'd prefer a finer counting-system for some games, at least as an option.

and, sure the 2000BKR-player wins against the 1000er even by one point. he wont increase his BKR too much, this is guaranteed by the existing BKR-calculation-system!!

well - anyway - i would still like to ask for the discussed  feature., as we have a new counting system for backgammon, which offers us a new kind of thrill competing, it would be nice to offer the mentioned system for other games, too!