Nombre de Usuario: Contraseña:
Registro de un Nuevo Usuario
Moderador: SueQ , coan.net 
 Backgammon

Backgammon and variants.

Backgammon Links


Mensajes por página:
Lista de boletines
No tienes autorización para escribir mensajes en este boletín. Para escribir mensajes en este boletín se require un nivel mínimo de membresía de Brain Peón.
Modo: Todo el mundo puede escribir
Buscar entre los mensajes:  

17. Julio 2006, 03:08:07
grenv 
Might I suggest the following:

BKR * games played for each variant.

Then add the total and divide by total games played.

People playing only one variant are therefore not punihed and a somewhat realistic BKR is reached (i.e BKR based on 25 games not counting for as much as one based on 500 games).

17. Julio 2006, 03:09:49
Thad 
Asunto: Re:
grenv: Might I suggest the following:

BKR * games played for each variant.

Then add the total and divide by total games played.


Isn't that what I said? ;-)

17. Julio 2006, 03:12:14
grenv 
Asunto: Re:
Modificado por grenv (17. Julio 2006, 03:13:43)
Thad: Yes it would seem so, but I only skimmed the thread since so many messages were new.

But I disagree that the rating would be provisional just because one type was missing or low number of games. We need to stipulate that the games are essentially the same for this exersize.

17. Julio 2006, 03:59:38
Peón Libre 
Asunto: Re:
Thad, grenv: I thought of that, and I see two problems.

First, if we're attempting to answer alanback's original question, I think we have to have some requirement of experience in all five games. Otherwise our newly crowned Champion-Of-All-Five-Positive-Gammon-Games will be, depending on whether we count provisional BKR in individual games, either 02i (who has provisional BKRs in three games and is unrated in the other two) or sergey82 (who has a very high established BKR in Backgammon but has not played the other four games). Would you declare someone the winner of a pentathlon if he had only participated in one or three of the five events?

Second (and perhaps more important), it is meaningless to directly compare a BKR from one game to a BKR from another game. Even though we all started with BKRs of 1300, the rating distributions tend to drift upward over time, and this does not necessarily happen at the same rate for all games. As of a few minutes ago, the median ratings on the lists of established BKR were 2044 for Backgammon, 1714 for Nackgammon, 1703 for Backgammon Race, 1677 for Crowded Backgammon, and 2029 for Hyper Backgammon. This suggests, for example, that a BKR of 1700 in Crowded Backgammon is better than a BKR of 2000 in Backgammon. Any comparison of BKR weighted by number of games played will be biased in favor of those who play mostly Backgammon and Hyper Backgammon.

I claim that linear combinations of BKRs can be meaningfully compared only if the weighting is the same for each player.

17. Julio 2006, 04:00:26
Peón Libre 
Asunto: Re:
Ouch. I didn't mean to post that all in bold. If I weren't a pawn I would fix that.

17. Julio 2006, 04:08:10
Thad 
Asunto: Re:
KotDB: Your second point is an excellent one.

I suppose you could compare each player's BKR in each game to the mean and find out who has the highest weighted average above each mean, highest deviation, or something similar.

This is getting quite complicated. ;-)

17. Julio 2006, 04:21:03
Peón Libre 
Asunto: Re:
Thad: Yes, it is. It's too bad BrainKing doesn't use the Glicko rating system -- we could get RDs into the mix.

Perhaps, rather than looking at BKRs directly, we should look at percentile ranks.

17. Julio 2006, 04:32:55
Thad 
Asunto: Re:
KotDB: I suggested those to Fencer once. He didn't seem to interested. :-(

I would LOVE to have them on my main page right between my 'Your best BKR' & 'Your best rating positions'!

17. Julio 2006, 16:05:46
grenv 
Asunto: Re:
KotDB: Good point about the rating medians, but that could be simply fixed by adjusting ratings for each game.

Personally I don't like crowded backgammon (takes too long) so I'll never win the pentathlon. Problem is many people only play 1-2 variants.

As far as the pentathlon analogy goes, it would really only work if there were 5 very different games, but these are all essentially the same.

17. Julio 2006, 17:17:47
gambler104 
Asunto: Re:
grenv: I wouldn't go as far as calling them essentially the same. The share many similar qualities but each has its own, unique strategy.

17. Julio 2006, 21:56:38
skipinnz 
Asunto: Re:
grenv: I for one definitely wouldn't class Hyper as the same, as the other variants of gammon.

17. Julio 2006, 23:30:34
alanback 
Asunto: Re:
skipinnz: Hyper is in fact a subset of regular backgammon, since it would be possible (though unlikely) to reach the hyper starting position at the end of a backgammon game.

17. Julio 2006, 23:51:19
grenv 
Asunto: Re:
alanback: As could Nackgammon.

18. Julio 2006, 00:20:10
alanback 
Asunto: Re:
grenv: Correct.

skipinnz: I felt the same way until I started playing hypergammon with the doubling cube. I think adding the cube makes skill predominate over luck, assuming the match is long enough (say 7 points or more).

Also, of course, all luck evens out over time, so with enough experience, skill differences will still emerge.

18. Julio 2006, 00:51:57
grenv 
Asunto: Re:
alanback: agreed, my rating shot up when the doubling cube was introduced. In fact in hyper there are more difficult doubling decisions than in regular backgammon I think.

18. Julio 2006, 01:01:10
alanback 
Asunto: Re:
grenv: Definitely a thinking man's game, with the cube.

18. Julio 2006, 04:35:03
gambler104 
Asunto: Re:
grenv: The cube decisions are definitely harder. But there is still a lot of luck even with the cube in hyper. In regular backgammon, a completely superior player will beat a weaker player 9 out of 10 times or more if they play a 7 point match with the cube. In hyper, I would say that number goes down to about 7 out of 10.

18. Julio 2006, 15:26:11
grenv 
Asunto: Re:
gambler104: Maybe, but I'd love you to show me tha math behind the numbers.

18. Julio 2006, 15:28:47
nabla 
Asunto: Re:
grenv: Maybe the math is that it defines what is a completely superior player !

18. Julio 2006, 01:40:46
skipinnz 
Asunto: Re:
alanback: I'll have to take another look at Hyper and try it with the cube.

18. Julio 2006, 00:04:04
skipinnz 
Asunto: Re:
alanback:When I said it wasn't the same, I was really refering to the chance/luck factor in Hyper. Too many doubles remove any skill factor IMHO

Fecha y hora
Amigos conectados
Foros favoritos
Comunidades
Consejo del día
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, todos los derechos reservados.
Volver a arriba