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? ;-)

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.

Ouch. I didn't mean to post that all in bold. If I weren't a pawn I would fix that.

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. ;-)

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.

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'!

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.

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.

grenv: I for one definitely wouldn't class Hyper as the same, as the other variants of gammon.

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.

alanback: As could Nackgammon.

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.

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.

grenv: Definitely a thinking man's game, with the cube.

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.

gambler104: Maybe, but I'd love you to show me tha math behind the numbers.

grenv: Maybe the math is that it defines what is a completely superior player !

alanback: I'll have to take another look at Hyper and try it with the cube.

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