BerniceC: Walt a pity. But Disnay worry me so far. ;-)

(I know, I know ... poetic licence)

Dryznik: The IYT Ladder system allows you to challenge 2 people within 20 places above yourself and have 2 challenges from other people below.

The BrainKing Stairs allows you to choose from 4 Steps (your own and the three below). That can mean a greater or lesser choice of players depending on how many people there are on those Steps. The fact that you look down rather than up to choose an opponent is a new perspective. It's too early to say how well it's going to work.

The GoldToken Ladders are the real "program induced" ones. Players are assigned to play one other on their current Step at random. That's neither a good thing nor a bad thing.

Fencer doesn't intend to sound rude when he says suck it up or go away... lolol.

Walter: "Looks like a bunch hoopla for nothing"

Well, yes and no. It's a whole new bunch of hoops that's for sure. And they're for jumping through - just for the hell of it! :-))

Earlier today I was kicked off a Step by Pedro. That's him up to 3, me back to 1. My aim is to clamber back up to 2, haul myself up to 3 and then return the favour! That's fun. :-))

Walter: There's no looking ahead or upwards. It's a game of climbing up by pushing your peers off the step you're on and stomping on those below.

It's an interesting point of view. Rather than playing the weaker of those players above (as on a Ladder), you initially make the best progress by playing the weakest of the weak below you! (at least to the degree that your playing ethics permit such choices) and also by knocking off rivals as they come up to your level. Hopefully for those reaching the higher levels of the Stair that latter becomes the prime reason for choosing an opponent.

Pythagoras: You can only challenge those on your step or the three below** - which places a limit on how magic your carpet is. In the case that the people below get pulled down by those below them and the gap widens, the empties will be whipped away by an angel.

** Fencer: Is that 3 below numerically, ie. including empty Steps or three occupied Steps below?

BIG BAD WOLF: Perhaps there could be four steps into the "cellar" (0, -1, -2, -3). You'd only go down to one of these steps if you timeout on Step 1. So the inactive players would go down a step each time they lost until they were unreachable by the live players above. The cellar could be where the dead bodies are kept.

BBW: And keeping the one which they've reached the highest in would be the kindest choice, or the top 7 if a Rook becomes a Knight.

pauloaguia: If it's like the similar situation with regard to tournaments, you'll be able to continue playing games that have been started but not start any new ones.

That still leaves the question of how the system will determine which Stairs have to be dropped when reducing to the lower membership's 7 or 1.

gringo: The BKR changes at the end of a match according to the result of the match as a whole. The results of the individual games don't matter as far as the BKR is concerned.

Fencer: Lol. Okay. Hmmmm, I'll have a ponder on that one.

Fencer: Thanks.

Another qustion, about Rule 5:
You can only challenge another player (who is not already challenged by someone else) on the same Step or within 3 lower as you. For example, if you stay on the Step 6, you send challenge players from Step 6, 5, 4 or 3.

That means you can only challenge those equal or weaker than yourself stairswise? No challenges to those above? I understand the opposite, namely where you can challenge those equal to or upto three steps above oneself. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I can't figure out the reasoning behind only being able to challenge those under you.

Fencer: I was going to reply 1) Super and 2) Super, but on reflection it's 1) Er, "Yes, BKR" or "Yes, outside BKR"? and 2) Super.

Fencer: Cooool. I like.

Couple of questions:
1) Do Stairs games count towards BKR or are they outside that system completely?
2) Can we have Backgammon with cube stairs please? I'd prefer 5-point matches myself. 3-pointers would be nice as well.

: Alternatively, "as far as I'm concerned".

ScarletRose: "sits and dwells on a game for 3 days " and " I wonder how many games I can win tonight against my opponents.."

Are you saying that that's not fun? Or that you don't understand those for whom it is? To someone deep into chess theory those three days (so short a time, lol) could be most satisfying. Not my cup of tea, I must admit. I'd rather spend those three days on 20 different backgammon analyses.

Andre Faria: I looked at the top players of that list and only reported on those that had played a wide enough range of games. Nuno and Ferjo have good scores but only in a small selection.

"i assumed that i was on the GCB till i just read that i was on the BKB"

Perhaps the boards could have different colours for the background to the messages. That will help people know when they're not on the general chat board.

Marfitalu: It's an interesting question.

Any qualification has to include a range of games. A player specialising in one area cannot be the best all-round player by definition. (Though this leads to the idea of best players within the different categories - the best chess, checkers, line games, gammons, boats and pond players).

BKR is of no use in judging because a BKR in one game is incomparable with any other. (The Top 50 Average BKR list is practically meaningless). Using the standard deviation of BKRs would be possible but wouldn't be readily understandable to many people. (Try explaining it in one simple sentence).

Ranking is of some use but a rank of 22 in a field of 52 players is hardly special. This suggests relative position - a player's score for a game would be the percentage of the playing population below them in rank. Only the rankings of established players should be considered. It may even be prudent to only count those with, say, 50 matches under their belt.

The best all-rounder has to have played games in all categories (or maybe all but one) and I would suggest that the top three/four/five percentages be taken from a category. This would allow the evaluation to concentrate on a person's strengths, eg their 5 best chesses scores, their 3 best checkers, 5 lines, 3 gammons, etc.

All these scores (percentages) would be summed and averaged giving the player an overall score.

I haven't looked at many player's finished games lists but Pedro Martínez strikes me as a strong contender. He has only one ranking not within the top 100! and plenty of rankings within the top 20. In chess he's got a 1, a 4, 6, 10 and 11; in checkers he's got a 2, 3 and 4; in gammons he's got 16, 17 and 25 (a bit more work there Pedro, lol). Line games give him 6, 9, 9, 9 and 11; in boats it's 1, 6 and 10 and in miscellaneous he's got 3, 5, 7, 11 and 14. All very impressive.

Those are raw rankings. I haven't converted any of them to percentages (too much work, lol - perhaps you can do it Pedro?), so maybe some of those rankings aren't as valuable as might seem but it's got to be a high overall score.

Another strong contender is oliottavio. He's very strong in chess but under-represented in checkers (only two variants played) and weaker in backgammon. Like Pedro he's got plenty of top 20 rankings.

Another possibility is Matarilevich. He's the top man in ponds, strong in chess, only two variants of checkers (and that's why dropping one category should be allowed), but weak in backgammon and boats.

You're old enough to know. You've been here long enough to know.

plaintiger: That's an interesting one. I've had piles of fellowship invitations that I didn't want and that said nothing in the message to me, leading me to wonder why I've been invited. I think those messages are somewhat rude in their lack. Some I delete immediately with no response (they hardly deserve it, after all). Others are still pending, even from months ago, just in case I ever decide to join the fellowship. It saves me having to apply. So I am ignoring those ones, but it's because of potential usefulness rather than rudeness. Perhaps there should be a third option: "Take a raincheck"?

alanback: Good idea. Or at the least carry over the last couple of messages so that the conversational context can be picked up again.

BIG BAD WOLF: That can only be a bug.

Lamby: Exactly! I thought "Haven't noticed that before. or have I?"

baddessi: Lol. I noticed the "oldest first" a week or so ago and thought exactly the same as you.

I tried it and can't see the point of it.

Doerdich: That's only in the first 25 games and it's a false impression given by the calculation of interim provisional ratings.

The established rating after the 25th game is effectively the sum of the 25 opponent's ratings plus 8 for each win and -8 for each loss. These 8s are the result of averaging the +/- 400 over 25 games.

Rather than wait until the 25th match has finished, the calculation keeps up a moving average. This can produce big swings from game to game but the gains and losses aren't "real" because the rating, within the first 25 matches, is not real either.

This message may be illustrative.

I'm not sure what function the 100 has in the following. It doesn't seem to affect the resulting ratings.
They agree the game is worth 100 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).


But that aside, it's an interesting idea.

I'd start, though, by saying that it's not a rating system. The purpose of ratings is to be able to compare players (as accurately as the model will allow). The model should be self-consistent, ie. there should be no player input required or allowed.

By having players agree to varying amount that they "put up on offer", (or bet? lol) - is to have a currency system where the "rating" is more like a purse or wallet. That's actually an attractive idea which could work in parallel with real ratings. At TrueMoneygames you can play Backgammon for money. But they also have the concept of play money for those who like safe betting. I was watching a player the other day who had amassed an amazing $1,000,000 of this play money. (Given that games are $100 that's quite an achievement - very aggressive doubling seems to have been the key. He won 3200 in a single game because of this. But, lol, I digress..) The point is that risking a chosen amount of your points is fun but cannot be part of a rating system.

I agree with you that a smaller K factor for tournaments could help encourage higher rated players to join. I haven't given much it study in Chess because I'm a Backgammon man. I do believe that the best way to encourage Backgammon players to risk their rating in an open-to-all tournament is to use the proper formula, one which is fair to all players.

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?

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.

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

alanback: Yes, that's correct. The examples should have said something like "Taking 16 matches" rather than "After 16 matches".

If I had a BKR simulator I could do the numbers properly but .... yes again, the conclusion is correct because the bias exists no matter what the two players' ratings are. The point being that the higher rated player cannot maintain a level against the opponent unless they win highly unrealistic numbers of games - way beyond chance.

The ELO Bg formula, once understood, is actually very elegant. (Though, to a non-mathematician like myself, that elegance has to be studied to get it into the brain, lol). One of the key points is that it maintains the rating difference between two players who are playing consistently at their respective skill levels. The idea is that a player at 2000 is going to win, for example, 56% against than an 1800er; so is the 1800er against a 1600er; and so too the 1600er against a 1400er. It's the difference of 200 that matters, not the ratings themselves.

The formula is a feedback loop that awards points according to this rating difference such that over time the resulting rating difference reflects the actual performance difference. The winner and loser both adjust by the same amount but the amount is greater if the loser wins. This ensures that the players stay at the same difference when playing consistently but ensures that they converge when the lower rated one plays consistently beyond their rated ability. Yet only to a given point - the point where their win rate in relation to the other is predicted by the new rating difference.

As an example, say the 2000er were to play only the 1600er in a lot of matches but the 1600er was winning 44% (ie. something expected of the 1800er). The two ratings would converge until they were 200 points apart (1900 and 1700) and then stay that way - the rating difference now accurately reflecting the performance difference.

I'm not enough of a maths-head to picture how your proposal would work [I'd have to write a program to show me how it works - or you can. ] but I don't think it would create the negative feedback effect. It also wouldn't have the same comparability (eg. difference of 200 = 56%:44% wins), though that may or may not be a disadvantage.

This change is fair in all the skill-only games but in anything to do with luck this new system will always pull the highest of two players down regardless of who they play. This will cause a general flattening of the ratings and make them less meaningful.

As shown in the examples below, the formula won't balance the ratings at a point where they reflect the respective skill levels but will continue to penalise the higher rated player until both ratings are equal!

This is the case for everybody whatever their rating and whatever their skill level. In any set of matches against the same opponent, whichever player is the the higher rated of the pair will always go down more than they can possible earn - because luck will not allow them to earn what the formula says they should be capable of.

BIG BAD WOLF: It's worse than that my friend. As a top 5 player it is against my interests to play outside the top 20 if I want to protect my rating. A system that makes that kind of thing even thinkable is not a good one.

In a fair system I'd be happy to play anybody, literally. With the widely used ELO Bg formula, if I were playing a single match against a beginner then I'd earn 1.25 points and lose 2.75 points. My share of the 4 available points would be about 30%. But I'd tend to win about 70% of the time so it would balance out. We'd both stay at our ratings, neither gaining nor losing over the long term.
That's what the formula is supposed to do - maintain the status quo when players are playing true to their rating.

Against an average player I'd earn 1.5 or lose 2.5 but I'd win less often - about 60% - which again makes it balance out.

A fair system doesn't penalise higher rated players when the lose against lower rated ones - the wins make up for it. Under such a system the best protection for your rating is to study the game and play it well.

But, back to BrainKing:

With this new formula I'd win 1 BKR point and lose 15 against the beginner. I'd still only win 70% of matches so ..
After 16 matches I'd have gained 11 x 1 = 11 points.
Yet I'd have lost 5 x 15 = 75 points.
I'm down 64 points - penalised for only having won what is reasonable.

In the proper system it would be win 11 x 1.25 = 13.75 and lose 5 x 2.75 = 13.75. Balance.


Against the average player I'd win 2 BKR points or lose 14. I'd still win 60% so ..
After 16 matches I'd have gained 10 x 2 = 20 points
But would have lost 6 x 14 = 84 points.
Again down 64 points.

In the proper system it would be win 10 x 1.5 = 15 and lose 6 x 2.5 = 15. Balance.


Against a top 20 player I'd win 6 BKR points or lose 9. This time I'd only be expected to win 55% of the matches.
After 16 matches I'd have gained 9 x 6 = 45 points
But I'd lose 7 x 9 = 63 points.
So even against someone closely matched I'd be losing 18 points just for winning only as many as expected.

In the proper system it would be win 9 x 1.75 = 15.75 and lose 7 x 2.25 = 15.75. Balance.

BB: Aye. Hypergammon has a higher luck component than Backgammon. How do you quantify the luck in Battleboats? There's a small but discernable degree of luck in Dark Chess. Different formulas for each would be appropriate.

But just two - the Chess one for games of pure skill and the Backgammon one for games with chance in them - that would be a good compromise and easy to implement.


As an example:
A top player here (BKR 2540) plays a single match against someone of 2400 points. It will be a gain of +5 for a win and a drop, -11, for a loss. That means that the higher player must win 2 out of every 3 games. Such a small rating difference does not reflect such a degree of difference in skill. In the example given the two players are well matched. The lower rated one has won 9 matches so far and the higher player has won 8.

Using the well established Backgammon formula (top player's rating at 2100 and lower player at 2000) the points would be 1.88 for a win and -2.12 for a loss. That ratio better reflects the skill differential: 52.9% winning chance for the higher player, 47.1% for the lower (and the points in inverse proportion).

Also noteworthy is that the match itself, being a single pointer, is only worth 4 points in total rather than being worth 16 as in the BKR example.

I hope it is clear from the example above that the Chess formula is unfair - and this is of a top 5 player playing a top 20 opponent!

When it comes to a high rated player against a much lower player, say a player 300 points lower (which is still top 70 and a strong opponent), the formula makes it highly punitive. A drop of 14 points for a loss and only 2 gained by a win! That means the higher player must win 7/8 matches just to stay even. There is no way that a 300 rating point difference can be justified by that.

Even against an average player, and Reza gives himself as an example, the top player will lose a substantial percentage of games because of the Dice Gods. (The Backgammon formula predicts 30%). The Chess formula's ratio of -14:+2 and worse will make higher ratings plummet as a result of normal losses in tournament matches - and that's a good reason to feel wary about joining them.

Purple: OOPS!

pauloaguia: Lol. I don't know how many times I've pressed the Accept button after writing a decline message! . Maybe it would help if they were lightly coloured in green and red.

ClayNashvilleTn:

nobleheart:
along to any old chat.

Kipling: It can be seen in two ways. Applying a flame to someone, by directly insulting them or by making a seemingly innocent remark which will provoke them. Another meaning is as a shorthand for inflaming - whereby an already heated situation is prolonged, renewed or heightened by an inflammatory post. Flaming of this nature may not be intended, for example, poor moderator action can do more harm than good, and supporting a friend publicly rather than sending a private message can add fuel to a fire which should be left to fizzle out.

wellywales: The server checks every 5 minutes and the browser refreshes every few minutes depending on the user settings. If this is every 5 minutes then it's possible for the browser to refresh just before the server has updated and gets the friend still showing as online. Then, five minutes after the server has updated, the browser refreshes and catches the true state. Hence 10 minutes.

plaintiger: You might want to add your comments to Bug Tracker: Arbitrary line breaks in posted messages .

mook53lhd: Hi Mookster. Have a look at your Settings page and find Number of my best BKR shown on the main page. That's what Vikings is referring to. The BKRs are automatic as you thought; the setting just says how many will be displayed on your front page. A BKR is provisional until you finish your 25th game.

Fencer: It doesn't work if ActiveX or Flash is disabled. Could there be an image as background for those cases?

mook53lhd: You're welcome. :-)

If you mean in Chess: Your opponent's rating was about 1650 so you'll get 2050 from those two games. Keep winning and you'll end up somewhere near #100. But any losses will pull you down. If you found the games easy then you might like to challenge someone at 1800 or higher, or go for a biggie from the top 100. ;-)

The provisional rating appears after the 4th game in each game type so another couple of ganmes of Chess and Backgammon should do the trick.

And, yep, just pick someone who sounds interesting or nice, or whatever, and invite them. You might want to go to their profile and click their Started Games pages. Many of the people with several hundred games going at once will take a long time to play a match with. Those with a few games are likely to be speed players. There's an informal club called the Quick Players Club. Most of the people listed therein will play at a decent speed.

Jim Dandy: Welcome to BrainKing, Jim. Unfortunately I'm too lazy to type anything else.

mook53lhd: Welcome meister. :-)

Your first 25 games go towards establishing your BKR. Until then you have a provisional rating. Putting it simply, the rating at 25 games is the average of all your opponents plus 8 points for each win and -8 for each loss. (So choose the highest opponents that you reckon you can beat, lol).

Here's the brief BrainKing explanation.

If you like, here are two in-depth articles on the formula. It's a chess formula but is used for all games. USCF Rating System and Chess ratings. They're a bit mathematical but have a read of them and see how much sense they make.

:-)

Chessmaster1000: George! I'm really sad to hear of your loss. Very glad that you didn't suffer physically yourself, but that loss of work and collections and data - it's awful! My strongest condolences.

What's the maximum length of a user name?

ClayNashvilleTn: Time-control indicators on the game list :-)

plaintiger: Google Ads works by reading the page that will contain the ads and deciding which are the key words. It then hauls out one of a selection of ads based on those words. I don't believe participants in the scheme have much control over what Google chooses though it would make sense, as you point out, not to have competitors advertised.

Princess Alison, ScarletRose: I'll second that. It's not cool to make fun of people who lack money.