meaning.....play games on BK, Not the Canadian family idea of it LOL

The KM did not authorize Glenda's cybering. Strictly a stevie idea. The reason is known to him alone. :)

No , but you offered to try to find a sponser for the account, it would have ended up being yet another AD type of thing wouldnt it

But thats all past now

Glenda was not a KM operative

Yep, I used wifey's account LOL but that wasnt a secret
And yes Purple, he was too good cos he used programmes

We had no one who could beat you Ed

Stevie was "Glenda" I remember that much. Used the same curse words against me, the silly lad could not even remember to stratify his identity, lol.

For just that same reason :)

Funny, I was torpedo-ing every KM player that I encountered :)

Yes, stevie's memory seems accurate. LOL

Some of our auxilliaries didn't have a KM tag so if you played much checkers there was probably a report on you but it may have been just a one liner..i.e. "likes to chat," "plays single corner" or "weak end game" etc. If you had much of a rating we took a closer look.

legs=4
colour=pluto colour
hair=very
sex= seen films about that
language=growl and roar

I think the KM book is planned for the 2 year annerversary of the downfall of the KM, with the movie following on the 5th anniversary.

When the KM was around, I tried to ignore most of if - just played the true games on the site, and not the outside games - so my curiosity would be to know if they had any "data" on me. :-)

The KM was a very interesting social phenomenon, particularly as internet communities are themselves so new. It would be nice to have a record of it's history and developement, roles of the officers, etc, no names need be used, I'm sure it would be fascinating, I'm certainly interested and have plenty of questions.

Oh my..these were the bad old days of course..Public Relations, Recruiting, Game Analysis, Opposition Research (500 names in the database) Top Guns Task Force, Ratings Monitor Detachment, plus our Pervert Busting Team where someone would disguise as a female and play known cyber guys..then reveal themelves at games end. Some cyber dudes were never heard from again. I can't remember everything. That was a year ago.

... a good example of why possible ratings should be calculated from the ratings when they first started the game, not when the game is complete.

How many named departments did KM have?

Not proud of this but The KM Covert Operations Dept. would occasionally torpedo some arogant hi rated dude by sending in a suicide bomber (often rigged up with a program) who would start a game with say a 2000 rating and..before finishing the game with the target..would tank 7-8 games in a row so the rating would be more like 1400. Then arrogant guy would lose to a 1400 player and take a major ratings hit. This was only done to predatory players but it didn't make it right. It is one example however of how ratings should be taken with a grain of salt.

Fancy that, someone was rated above GothicInventor, if that isn't grounds for changing the system I cant imagine what is. Shouldn't all this be on the jokes board?

<Maybe it would help if you see how an actual USCF elo score is computed. The pre-Glickman technique is very easy to walk through.

Let's look at Nellaf's 7-0 performance against his opposition:

facepan 1957
Scubbabisto 1624
whikki 1677
Thad 1758
juangrande 1805
CMoore 1150
penswift 1975

Under the old Elo system, you get 400 points more
than each player over your first 20 games or so if you win, subtract 400 from them if you lose, and add their rating if the game is a draw, then average the results.

For "obvious results" (like losing to a player > 400 points over your provisional rating, or winning against someone 400 below you) not being factored in to pull you down.

1957 + 400 +
1624 + 400 +
1677 + 400 +
1758 + 400 +
1805 + 400 = 8821 + 2000 = 10821

Over 5 games, this is a 2164.2 rating.

Now the 1150 result is not goverened by
the "+400" rule since is it an obvious result
that a 2164 should beat an 1150.

So, the player is given another game credit at the
provisional rating clip.

So, add 2164 to the running total:


10821 + 2164 + 1975 + 400 = 15360

Divide by the 7 games and you get 2194.

This is no where near 2417, as you can see.

To get a 2417 rating, you need to be undefeated against an average field of 2017. He never even played one person with such a rating.

*enter BBW again*

... speaking of ratings again, something that has always annoyed me is a rating is calculated from the rating at the time the game ends.

So lets say you are rated 1500 and start a games with someone rated 2000. But by the time the game is complete, his rating drops to 1000. Now you rating will not raise as much as if he was the 2000 rated person you started the game with.

In live games (where most ratings come from), this is not a problem since games are usually started and completed at the same time so rating never has a chance to change.

May I ask why ratings are figured this way and not using the rating the person had when they started the game?

I was thinking of that. Thanks for your confirmation.

*enter BBW*
LOL:)

I think the full 3 points should be given each time for a timeout.

That way if someone is about to lose, they will not let it time out with the possiblility to not lose as many points.

No, all finished games are figured the same.
Btw, it brings a possible problem with Pro Backgammon (to be implemented soon). Since a game of this type can be won with 3, 2 or 1 point [score points, not BKR], how many points should be given in case of a timeout?

will timed out games be figured differently?

Speaking of ratings (and finishing all discussions based on ridiculous notes about random numbers), I've just finished my BKR history generator and make the first test run (on my local computer, of course).
The results are very good, I think. Some differences between current values and recalculated ones can occur but nothing too drastic (+-50 points).
It will be launched when I am absolutely sure the generator is correct and when I finish a graph drawing engine.

at least BK tries to have 1. It's Fencer site and if he wishes. It could be like IYT site and not have a rating at all.
Yes from time to time I did not think some of my games was right but I just looked at it as, well at least we have something to look at.
BBW, I would like to thank you for what you put. cause with the 1700.2 and 1700.4 it now make a little more sence of why some times you win a game but you don't seem to move in rating.
Again TYVM Fencer for giving as something to look at and a way to kinda conpair who is close to my skill in said game.
:o{P

When we all started, our Gothic BKR was 1300. So it was very very difficult to "climb up". We had 1900 and 2000 players clubbing each other to break 1500.

Mt 2400 rating was an 1100 point climb the hard way. That other person's was from winning against a "higher rated" player, then mediocre play compounded the rating.

All you have to do is beat a strong person early on, once, and you can pole vault over someone who has won 500 games and lost none.

From then on, just draw every game, and you lose 0 points.

Not a very realistic representation of a real rating system.

YOu are right Stevie :)

It does depend on what bkr the opponents had too though doesnt it

Conversely, I win over 100 games of Gothic Chess without a loss, and hardly scrape past 2400. Then someone else comes along and goes only 7-0 and was rated higher than me for a few months.

Not very realistic.

ED : first 25 games will be your BKR optimal .

If you lost some games now , dont be suprised if your bkr will decrease with hundred points :)

I played tournament chess for 11 years and never broke 2300. I played here for a week and have a 2600+ rating in chess.

Not very realistic.

Established ratings are good enough for assessing a potential opponent's strength relative to one's own, give or take a couple of hundred points, and as one doesn't want to be confined within too small a band of suitable opposition I would say the ratings for the far greater part function usefully.

No comment from me on the ratings. After all, I am mentioned by Mark Glickman, official USCF Ratings Chairman, as having successfully implemented his new, highly accurate system correctly in his first paper he published on it years ago at Boston Universtity.

I offered to help Fencer way back when, but got the stereotypical "nothing is wrong with the ratings" reply.

I know exactly what Fencer is doing wrong, since he is constantly referring to a very old paper Mark wrote, which DOES NOT consider calculating the so-called "rating period" variable properly the way we need (rate after a 1-game trial, not many provisional games in parallel).

Hope everyone else enjoys the random 4-digit number next to their name :)

ohhh. well if you put it that way...yeah, i definitely would not be happy with people incessantly shaking me awake and demanding explanations of rating systems! :D

Its 7am I guess? cos its 6am here LOL wohoohohoooo only 2hrs till home time LOL I am still being polite LOL

Right. But do you know what time is here? I am still sleeping :-)

c'mon, Fencer, be nice now. everybody else is.

not everyone has encountered your previous explanations, nor will everyone go looking for them on blind faith that they're around here somewhere (you know how many boards there are here, and how many messages are on each one!). as people join BK and see weird BKRs that don't seem to make any sense, they're going to continue to ask this question. and unless and until a system of BKRs is implemented that *does* appear to make sense at first glance, the questions will keep coming. just ignore them if you like; it's evident that you don't *need* to keep explaining because other people who grasp the system, like BBW, will do it for you.

your time is much better spent on updating and upgrading and tweaking and all the other vastly more important stuff that only you can do.

right? :)

BBW: Yes, it would be useful for me as well :-) I currenly sort bugs by priority, so it shows the open ones at the top of the list.

Yea, the bug list is getting long - hard to remember what is there or not.

Fencer - I know it's not a top priority, but would be nice to sort bug list to show still open bugs only.

thank you very much, BBW - that's just the kind of explanation i was hoping for!

yea verily dost thou rule. :)

tiger

Thanks BBW, I must have missed that one

Stevie - I think that is a bug if there is a draw (Bug #7)

If that was not a draw, then there is another problem. :-)

How many more questions about BKR? Whether the formula seems fair or unfair, accept it. I explained it many times and I don't want to repeat it again.
Vacation days should be fixed.

Doing the math, especially when users have few games you can see a lot of weired things..... and when i say few games, that is under 100.

1) Doing the math, even if you win you could actually lose rating points. (But I believe in the coding of BK, you will never lose points for a win - even if the math says so) - hence, sometimes your rating will just not move.

2) Ratings are rounded. So if says you have 1700, you may actually have 1700.2 --- and then if you win, your rating might raist to 1700.4, but will still show as 1700.

3) The fewer games you have finsihed, the more erradic your rating will be. BK tries to solve this a little to not even show you ratings until 4 games are done, and not show established until 25 games are complete. (Heck, I actually think I read somewhere where 400 games should be the minimum amount of games that need to be complete before getting a good established rating.)

4) Good news is that Fencer is working on a way to recalculate all the ratings from day 1 on all the games soon.... so if people really think things are off a little (And my froglet rating is about 30 points to low because of a bad game timeout), it will be fixed!

Stevie: old BKR = 1748, new BKR = 1748 (0)
fullmoonhawke: old BKR = 1799, new BKR = 1799 (0)

I am the one who was and is 1799 and fullmoonhawke is/was 1748

It swapped the bkr, but luckily left them correct on our profiles LOL

i recently had some funky business with BKRs too: here are the results of the last four games of Froglet i completed, in order:

plaintiger: old BKR = 1700, new BKR = 1700 (0)
MsDelete: old BKR = 1301, new BKR = 1240 (-61)

plaintiger: old BKR = 1700, new BKR = 1700 (0)
Paula29: old BKR = 873, new BKR = 871 (-2)

plaintiger: old BKR = 1700, new BKR = 1700 (0)
TJ: old BKR = unrated, new BKR = unrated

plaintiger: old BKR = 1700, new BKR = 1707 (+7)
Lorraine: old BKR = unrated, new BKR = unrated

can anyone explain the logic behind this (without getting too much into mathematics, which will serve no purpose but to bewilder me instantly)?

why did i get no points for three wins in a row - for one of which my opponent lost SIXTY-ONE points, and one of which was against an unrated player - and then get seven points for the fourth game, also against an unrated player?

this makes no sense to me at all.

oh yeah: the ratings of the first two players were established (not provisional).

thanks...

le tigre

Stevie, I think 1500 is the axis so 1600 is way above compared to 1200 which is way below.