# How to interpret rating table?

Hi,

I am so lost looking at my rating table. Can someone maybe explain a bit?

How can my average/ combined „dot“ columns be higher than all of the individual entries?

1 Like

The overall 9x9 row value is also higher than the individual entries in the row.

I think it’s that the overall/combined columns aren’t just simple averages of the other columns. Instead they’re separately calculated for each game that goes into them.

I think something like this was said in response to similar questions

1 Like

The thing that might make @BHydden’s answer there clearer and more understandable to me, would be the answer to this question:

If the ratings are calculated separately to each other, does it compare each entry to my opponents corresponding entry in the calculation?

I.e. is my 9x9 correspondence rating used with my opponents 9x9 correspondence rating after a 9x9 correspondence game finishes? Then it would also compare my overall 9x9 to their overall 9x9, my correspondence rating to their correspondence rating, and my overall rating to their overall rating in updating all the entries?

I’m expecting that the answer is probably yes, in part because it sounds like it makes sense

1 Like

Yes, all 4 ratings are updated individually.

3 Likes

It’s great to see how predictive the OGS ratings are!
I really appreciate that side of it and the rigour applied is great.

What is still on my wishlist though is a system such that the rating system is also easy to understand.
I find that the EGD rating system is fairly simple to understand for example. Less predictive but much better ergonomics & usability.

Here are questions, I‘d like to understand about the OGS rating system:
What does it tell me if I have 12 different numbers that are somewhat dependent but not very much. Does it mean I am stronger in some aspects (slow games) than others? But then the aggregate numbers don’t necessarily bear that out since they are calculated differently. ===> looks like transitivity is broken in the rating system (transitivity: if chocolate is better than vanilla and vanilla is better than hazelnut, then chocolate should also be better than hazelnut).

How do those 12 numbers inform my rank, which Number (e.g. 2100?) Constitutes a 1d rating and how much do I stand to gain against an opponent of equal strength? (equal in all 12 or just the rank?)

If my blitz rating is a few hundred points weaker than slow games, what does that mean? Does it mean the scale is different or my skill level is different?

I am really happy with how OGS is developing, and don’t mean to criticize too much. My only feedback after reading through the detailed and rigorous analysis is that it shows that the human-to-rating-system interaction has not been given much weight in favor of maximal predictive power and I think a balance would be best.

Cheers,
Zach

1 Like

There is no transitivity at all beyond the fact that you are the same person and some of the pools have data that overlaps.

Don’t think of them as parts of a whole. Think of them as totally unique views of you. As unique as your KGS, or Tygem, or Fox ranks may be.

The “overall” sections are not in any way an aggregate, each section is uniquely calculated from its own subset of games against the same section of each of your opponents.

It would be wrong to compare your corr rating with your live rating and conclude they’re saying you’re stronger at one than the other.

What you can do is compare your corr rating with another person’s corr rating and have some kind of prediction as to which of you would win a corr game.

Only your overall rating informs your rank and game pairings, all other ratings, while accurate, are merely cosmetic.