Under the old rating system I’m currently 9k and I’m playing a number of games against opponents who have a rating in region of +/-10k under the new system. Under the new system I’m 14k.
I just finished a game against someone who is 8k who congratulated me on a close game that would have been a 6 stone handicap. I thanked him for his praise but pointed out that under the old system I’m around 10k.
I’ve pointed out on a previous post that my game results show a consistent regular up and down performance oscillating between about 13k to 8k.
Beginners also need unranked (21k-) option. For them difference between 20k an 24k is huge.
I can create game without restriction but I need to click cancel each time someone else accept. People may remember that I canceled them. And if my color is white cancel button doesn’t work after black places stone and I place none.
The new Glicko rating seems indeed to be inflated compared to the old ELO system by 1-2 stones, at least in the range of 2-6 kyu where I can properly judge, it is really noticeable. And this is based on those players who show pretty constant performance over time so that ELO system is showing the correct rating with confidence.
I support froofy towards having tougher ranking on the server. Like this you really feel that you merit your rank, and you are confident about your level if you go somewhere else. It is always good to know that “our” dans will beat “their” dans.
I just made a script for converting the Glicko rating table:
But I re-read this about things being on different scales. What does that mean? Does the formula glicko = 850exp(0.032r) use different constants? Are at least all the 19x19 and overall constants the same, and it’s only different for the smaller board sizes? Can you clarify this?
Traditionally the kyu/dan ranks are spaced out such that each rank represents exactly 1 stone of strength in either direction. To get that to work functionally, you need to play around with the constants in the glicko rating algorithm so that it can be as accurate as possible. Because the “breakout table” has multiple different data points, it is impossible to have maximum accuracy for each rating using the same constants. This means that, though you may find it simple enough to assiciate a kyu/dan number to the glicko rating, this number you have come up with is unlikely to accurately represent a 1:1 ratio between stones and ranks.
I disagree, but as yet have not given it enough thought to back up my feelings mathematically. I am of the opinion that a strong correlation between stones and ranks would be achievable without specifically ranked handicap games being required, due in large part to our understanding of standard deviations on a normal curve.
OGS used to use the EGF rating formula for estimated win rates across kyu/dan ranks. There’s no reason why it can still use the same win rates with the Glicko rating system. I’m guessing that’s why the new k/d ranks are scaled to rating using an exponential model.
Though, if Glicko win expectancies across a constant rating delta is the same as pure ELO, I’m expecting the ranks are smaller than the EGF spec (ELO is already 100 points/rank at EGF19 kyu). That might be why the ~20 kyus are seeing some rank deflation, while higher ranks are seeing larger rank inflation.
EDIT: Though my attempt to derrive a equation from the EGF spec, 14000 - 80 ln | x - 20 | * 100 (~1200 at 20 kyu) seems to be way too wide (~2x rank size compared to the current OGS formula)