Glicko entry points and new players

[shinuito]

@benjito

I think we should try to dig this analysis up if it’s going to be the bar to which we hold ourselves.

@shinuito

Various quotes about letting users choose their own rank.

Like I linked way back

Welcoming beginners and OGS rating system (A compendium)

— partly for me becuase I’d like to be able to find these again at some point — Generally reading this post in regards to what’s wanted for a rating system to do on OGS is quite interesting. Re: I don’t think it’s been demonstrated sufficiently if I’m honest. It was discussed here and @Vsotvep did some simulations but I wouldn’t call that sufficient to say how a system of millions of players might behave when only simulating the ratings of about 5, even if one “play…

Where you can find some info like

Testing the Volatility: Summary

Yes we use the code in goratings/glicko2.py at master · online-go/goratings · GitHub almost verbatim, the only differences are around bindings to internal data structures and whatnot, if it’s a concern I’d be happy to send along a diff of the two versions. (I can confirm there’s no algorithmic differences in the diff, just things like we name things “v5_Glick2Entry” instead of just “Glicko2Entry”, stuff like that. Note we don’t use the gor implementation in that repository at all, that was jus…

Where there’s a lot of comments on what the rating system needs to do

@anoek

We can’t count on users setting a good rating/rank when they join, the system needs to quickly find a suitable rating and rank for them.

@anoek

There can be a difference between technically better and fair, as perceived by a player. Most players in practice prefer “fair” over marginally better but “unfair” ratings, specifically:

• In general when this topic has come up before, players don’t like their rank drifting when they’re not playing
• When you lose, your rank should go down, when you win, your rank should go up. Staying neutral is fine too for cases where the rank difference is high.

and so on, have a read.

@anoek

Also allowing people to set their own rank causes a bunch of problems (as mentioned in a previous post, we used to do this, it caused a lot of problems with sandbaggers and heliumbaggers), so that somewhat precludes doing things like making an optional button they can click to take a quiz or something.

This was 2018 bear in mind.

@anoek

Increasing the starting deviation (ie decreasing starting confidence) does not help (I ran a bunch of simulations with this back when picking values, turns out that Professor Glicko fellow knew a thing or two and picked some great default values).

I think some simulations were done when humble rank was introduced originally

I think the 13k default rank is doing harm [Closed]

I’ve run some numbers and I’m excited to try out the humble rank proposal. It’s going to be a wait and see kinda pattern to see the real effects on the rating system as a whole, but I’m optimistic it’ll at least result in more quality matches overall, and be a lot more beginner friendly during those crucial first few games. We might have to fiddle with the rank bands in the future to account for the difference in point injection into the system, but so long as it improves the quantity and qualit…

I’m not sure any of these directly answer @benjito but just trying to help find things somewhat relating to the way the current system is now.