Thats why having similar results in both glicko and elo is more reliable than just glicko/elo alone.
Actually I believe glicko have lot more potential compared to elo.
By “validation” (not perfect term, but cant find better one) I mean elo telling “same story” like glicko for vast majority of normal (non-sandbagger, …) players - if this happens vast majority of my concerns will disapper.
Is the OGS team planning to do something to actually reduce the ranks of high dans, and not just hide the problem by showing “9d+”? Having an unrealistic mapping from rating to rank affects handicap games. For example, I think that a six-stone game between FrancisCol and me would be fair, but if the system thinks that he should give me 10 stones, then he won’t be interested in playing a ranked handicap game against me.
This could be fixed by changing the function 850exp(rank0.032). Maybe the mistake was that this function was derived by giving the same weight to each player, which gave a great fit for kyu players at the expense of high dan players?
Yes, from a usability perspective a mistake has been made. Ratings should be rendered in kyu/dan terms because that is what Go players understand.
This illustrates the problem:
OGS is made by engineers. Such a justification makes eminent sense to an engineer. To a non-engineer, however, this is screaming out that even justifications of the rating table describe how to translate ratings into ranks. No-one cares about the ratings!
So, there’s a simple solution:
Present the table in kyu/dan terms, not glicko rating terms.
Provide a toggle, so that the glicko data can optionally be revealed.
I’d recommend going further. So, when displaying the kyu/dan ranks, drop the ± stuff. Again, no-one cares. There’s an intuitive way of showing the deviation without asking users to do math:
“8K” is an established rank.
“~ 8K” is an approximate rank where the deviation is quite large.
“?K” is a provisional rank where the deviation is too large to trust.
Life would be better. Everyone would be happy and the glicko data would still be available for anyone interested examine.
In the far future people will have ratings for everything(getting a bit dystopian here) including how well we live our lives, how good of a citizen we are, how trustworthy, and these will keep us all under control of the government, shunning away anyone who thinks of speaking out in order to improve are rankings. Of course this is already happening with the new plan china is planing to implement, but obviously there is not a 100% chance that this grim future is ours.
Yes, having both ranks would be nice, just for reference. I think that OGS has incredible UI, but the new ranking system and how they are displayed is really confusing. I know that it isn’t really that hard to understand, but I personally like the older graph better. It just made more sense. I think OGS should keep the older graph, but adjust it to show the Glicko-2 ranks. Also, it would be handy to have kyu/dan ranks on the side of the graph too, not only because it is easier to read, but also because this is how we ranked people in go for thousands of years(correct me if I am wrong about that). So it is sort of a tradition that all go players know.
I think we need a more compact graph for people with small screens. Maybe take the old normal/full size thing and show the overall rating and small graph, and then the full size and selectors when you click a link.
Yes but the scale doesn’t change the message. You could zoom the old graph in or out as much as you wanted to make it look flat or sharp… it’s the rate of change that determines progress regardless of how zoomed in or out the axis is.
If you want a more localised graph you can select a time frame from the bottom graph and the top graph will reflect that localised position. As you can see in my screen grab your progression over the last month and a half is much more obvious (as you wanted)
In 6 months you’ve gone up 1.5 ranks… that improvement is commendable, but I find the new graph much more humbling and a “reality check” as when you consider that the journey from 25k - 7d involves 32 rank jumps, a change in either direction of 1.5 ranks should not be given as much attention as it was with the old graph.
I understand the nice endorphin hit you get from seeing your graph climb (as you can see by comparing my old graph to my new graph) but consider for a moment the players that drop a rank or two… in the old graph that looks like a spiralling collapse where as the new graph shows clearly that, while they have dropped some, it’s hardly a “devastation”