Hey people, beginner here. Still getting used to the platform, but after a few more questions I think I’ll achieve my desired level of comfort. So, let me ask this one
I see people saying that there isn’t a rank (do I say rank, ranking or rating?) below 25k and indeed that’s what I see on the right side of the nick of every player (no number below 25). However, if I understood it correctly, that information is not quite true. In the game history section I can see lower ranks in my second column (which I assume are my own rank after each game), going for example from around 40k to 26k (and as I read in some sources the total beginner starts with 30k, so that’s not an absolute agreed scale?). Is that my “real” rank? If so, why is this real rank hidden from everyone (at least at first glance, without entering the profile of the person)? Depending on how the matching algorithm works, there can be a bad consequence: people with a very wide range of skills can play together, since 25k can describe people who already read a couple of books and know how to read a ladder and also people who are playing the first games and are very insecure about the rules. Or the algorithm matches the players according to this hidden rank? But even so, what’s the reasoning behind this design choice?
Since I’m around the game history section, let me ask another noob question: What is the meaning of the games in which the name of the players are underlined?
Ranks: kyu and dan given by the value of your rating.
Rating: the numerical value calculated by the OGS system according to your games results.
May I suggest you, as being beginner to trust the system to pair you at best which is the main goal of the rating? You could even hide the ranks in the settings and enjoy the game as such.
so, first the terminology:
your rating on OGS is determined by a calculation where each win or loss gains or loses you points depending on how likely you were to win/lose the game based on both players ratings before the game. Your rating is used to match you with equally strong opponents.
Traditionally a go players strength is indicated by a rank from 9 dan (strongest) to eg. 25 kyu (weakest, sometimes lower). Originally the ranks were based on the handicap system in go. A 1 dan should be able to play a fair game (a game with equal winning chances) against a 3 kyu with 3 stones handicap.
Nowadays, that isnt the determining factor for ranks. OGS uses your rating and converts it into a rank. For examle my rating of 1840 is converted to a rank of 1 kyu here.
Ranking refers to your spot in some hierarchy. Eg.: Shin Jinseo is ranked number 1 in the world.
As far as I know, even though your rating can be lower that what corresponds to the rank of 25 kyu, 25 kyu is the lowest rank displayed. [Except in the game history?]
This is pretty arbitrary, but so is choosing 30 kyu as the lowest rank. As you supected, this is not an absolute measure of strength and your rank here can differ from your rank elsewhere.
Your “real” rank (corresponding to your strength) appears in your history
but OGS doesn’t display ranks below 25k next to your thumbnail.
I think that, when playing handicap games, any player weaker than 25k is considered as a 25k, i.e. a 20k would give 5 stones to a 40k in a handicap, 19x19 game.
Yes that’s true, however I’m not sure there are enough players on OGS to only match 40k together, 39k together, etc.
@kickaha and everyone, thanks for the terminology clarification. So, what I got is:
a. “Rating” is the number calculated by Glicko-2, right?
b. There isn’t an universal rank scale (not the existence of an absolute low point and maybe neither as how you move through these ranks?). The consequence is that even if there’s a formula to switch from rating to rank it’s peculiar to OGS.
@Groin It’s not a matter of mistrust, but just an academic curiosity
@jlt Yes, so you think the algorithm ignores the idea of a rank lower thank 25k? Your handcap argument and the idea that there are fewer people in these specific ranks are indeed some hypothesis that make sense (well, I haven’t even thought that the matching algorithm actually uses the rating and not the rank!). By the way, how did you find my profile? That’s not a complaint, I was almost about to ask somewhere if I could change my nick here to match my OGS profile name.
It’s “peculiar to OGS” only in the sense that any Go rank is “peculiar” to the system setting that rank.
The OGS formula is regularly tuned to align with AGA and EFG ranks, playing players who have either or both of those ranks at a comparable rank (somewhere between).
@jlt Ah, got it, thanks. But there’s at least a minimum amount of faith/guesswork, right? Because I still don’t have the same thumbnail here and there could be another person with this name. Again, not complaining, just to be sure if there isn’t a method to find the person OGS profile directly from the forum profile, which I think there isn’t, correct?
Oh ok, thanks, it’s harder than I thought. Maybe some day I will make a nerdy activity to pursue these formulas, The following order of understanding is what made sense to me: Glicko-2; rating->rank (AGA/EFG); matching between players in OGS. I believe the last one (or two) might not even be publicly available. But for now, understand that there isn’t an universal rank system (although there are some standard ones) is just what I needed to know.
