Haven’t experienced that myself.
I just look at rank difference, and only open challenges for people with a max difference of +/-1 in rank.
Haven’t experienced that myself.
In case anyone’s interested, the “rank - worldwide comparison” page on Sensei’s Library needs updating. But how?
It’s BS from beginning to now anyway.
Why do you say that?
It’s always been wrong. I don’t know what it’s based on. I checked it like 2 years and it hasn’t changed.
So 2 years = “from the beginning” and “always”? How old are you, if I may ask?
Guests are 5 kyu now? Maybe its better to move them to the end of chat list?
There is something wrong with sort of any [?] account
names sorted by rank, but better rank is places below worse
update: it seems they are 6k, not 5k, but 7k still has higher glicko rank but placed below
It also happens in groups, all the question mark accounts seem to be pushed to the first page in the members lists.
Didn’t know it, I understand.
I have no way of knowing my AGA or other ranking, but my jump from 14k to 9k cannot be right! I understand that your dan-level rankings are wrong, but increasing the rank of the lowest-ranking players by a very large amount cannot be correct.
While I haven’t played much here at OGS, I played a lot with ranked players in the 1980s, and on IGS and KGS in more recent years. I think I have a feel for how I’m doing, and it just doesn’t feel right to be called a 9k player. Has OGS management actually tested three or four OGS players of widely separated rankings to see whether the new OGS system truly accords with AGA or other recognized rankings? If not, I suggest that this be done very soon.
“Cannot”. A very strong conclusion . Do you have data to support that?
Did you see this bit:
A change for OGS people feels un-natural because we are all mostly calibrated in our sense of what the ranks achieve based on our play here.
For every personal anecdote about experience elsewhere being one direction, there will be a personal anecdote in the other. For example, when we had an influx of folk from another server, not that long ago, they all reported being beaten here by players well below their ranking on the other server, and thus ending up lower ranked here, on our previous ranks. IE our ranks were too low compared to the other. Anecdotally.
Ultimately the data is what counts, and anoek’s description of the process indicates that this whole thing has been highly data driven and continues to be so.
To say it in as few words as possible: anoek tried to make OGS 1d fit nicely between AGA 1d and EGF 1d. All other ranks are based on 1 rank difference being equal to 1 stone handicap, which has been based on data from actual handicap games.
In life, as in Go, it always pays to read it out first!
Based on a gut feeling, you can’t believe it might be correct.
This does sound rather subjective, and not backed up by evidence.
Why not try it for a while? Give the new rating & rank adjustment system a chance.
Perhaps it has to do with your exclusive 9x9 play (941 games 9x9 to 2 19x19 games). It’s possible that you’re better at 9x9 than 19x19 due to playing it more and since you haven’t played any 19x19 on the site in 4 years the rating system has no other way to assessing your rank.
Looking at your last couple months of history you seem to be winning and losing at an appropriate rate against 7-10k players. So if the ranking and matchmaking sets you up for even games, then that’s what the system is for
Perhaps we shouldn’t display kyu/dan ranks at all, and only show numeric ratings
My reasoning for this (non-serious) proposal is that a less human-readable number means that people are less likely to tie it closely to their identity and get attached to it.
A rating like “1745” is still a little bit too readable though… someone could get the idea to start referring to themselves as a “1700 player”, and get upset if they drop below 1700 or go above 1800.
So to be on the safe side, we should show ratings in hexadecimal ( #6C1 ) or braille ( ).
If we switch to a new display system every month (to prevent anybody getting too familiar with a particular system), I’m sure there will no longer be any complaints about ratings being incorrect
On the flip side, a lot of people do like the traditional kyu-dan system and some feel really good for finally reaching the dan ranks after the ratings boost.
Since it could possibly make a lot of people very happy, why don’t we just make the lowest rank one dan and then count up from there, say to around 34 or 35 dan as max. Then, everyone can feel good about being a dan!
We could even give our server a new name:
The worst part of what you just wrote is that is unironically an improvement on the traditional system
- No more confusion about the fact that lower kyu number => higher rank
- No issues computing handicaps across the kyu/dan-border due to the missing 0
- No ambiguous “0.7 k” like OGS has right now
- No more giving special significance to the arbitrary distinction between dan and kyu
@anoek , it seems problem is bigger than just sort of names in chat
Kosh in help chat just said:
and there is also this
3 places where system thinks that [?] are 6k?
Coincidence? Or they really work more like 6k than we think?
Good stuff for the Controversial Go Opinions thread!