OGS rank mixed with all board sizes?

I feel like OGS rank should only reflect on 19x19 and not mixed with 9x9 and 13x13, a lot of players I have seen are stronger than their current rank but unfortunately lost some games in other board sizes which lowering their ranks, ogs should have a separate rank for 9x9 and 13x13, thank you


I think I’m against it because it would take me forever to recover what I lose with correspondence games overall rank is not an average, it takes into account the last few games and it rapidly adjustes considering what the player is actually doing.
You can see the specific ranks (including 19x19) in the player’s profile, maybe that’s what you were asking for?


The same can be said of the different game speeds and then we end up with nine separate ranks. This has come up before and I believe anoek did an exhaustive analysis before concluding that overall rank is a better match-maker than separate ranks due to the higher volume of information available to the system.


then how about removing ranks for 9x9 and 13x13 completely, Go is supposed to be playing on 19x19 and not on 9x9 and 13x13, people can still have the option to play 9x9 and 13x13 but just not ranked

There are many people who play only 9x9 and 13x13, they have the right to have a rank in my opinion. I know on other servers it’s not like that but that’s something I’ve always loved about OGS.


it’s a fake rank, like when people ask you “oh hey what’s your rank in go” do you think they are asking for 9x9 and 13x13 or 19x19? let’s say you can beat a top pro in 9x9, does that make you a top pro, 9x9 and 13x13 is uncommon and no one really have any training in these board sizes, there are no tournaments or any competitions involving with 9x9 and 13x13, those ranks are fake and unauthentic, sorry

If I could beat a top pro in 9x9, I would be a lot better than I am now lol

Edit: see also Collection: 9x9 Pro Games


I think the answer is already here:

It’s hard to believe that if someone beats a top pro in 9x9 he can also be a ddk in 19x19.


It might be worth mentioning that it is now possible to filter your opponents Game History by board size (also ranked/unranked) which makes it a lot easier when reviewing a user’s past.

Additionally, of course you can also look at their category rank but this needs to be compared to your own category rank of the same type to be a valid comparison.


the solution shouldn’t be how to deal with it, not only ranks shouldn’t mix with other board sizes since other board sizes is practically uncommon and not applicable in real life(it should only be played for fun and not competitively) but also bots shouldn’t allow to play ranked with humans, there’s reasons why ogs rank is highly inaccurate


If you’re not interested in suggestions of how to make best use of the site then I’ll make better use of my time elsewhere.


I am suggesting how to make the rank system better because as of now it looks broken to me

Who says go is supposed to be played on 19x19? The go police? Did Moses bring that law down from the mountain? We know that in ancient times go was sometimes played on 17x17. Whether it or 19x19 is historically the “real” go is unknown. Perhaps 19x19 was an ancient expansion experiment just like 25x25 is today.

Your whole argument begs the question of what is “real.” Is our material world solid or a lattice full of holes? Which is real? How is one more real than the other? For a very long time, it has been understood in philosophy that what is real depends on the level or perspective under discussion. At our level the world is solid; at the subatomic level, it is full of holes (really, it’s even worse, “probability waves” of virtual particles and what not—but let’s not get technical, the point is made). Go ranks for 9x9 and 13x13 are just as valid for 9x9 and 13x13 as the ranks for 19x19 are for 19x19. Indeed, they may be more accurate. In my observation, sandbagging is much more common at 19x19 than at smaller boards. And it is sandbagging, not other board sizes, that leads to the greatest inaccuracies in rank.

It should also be noted that many IRL players regard all online ranks as fake.

OGS has always stood for freedom, not for dictating how or why people should play go (other than following the rules of the game and the ethical policies of the site), nor for ridiculing how people choose to enjoy the game.


Maybe a solution is to let players choose which rank they want to see as the main rank of another player. Not sure how technically difficult this is.

Originally we had 9 ranks for each of the board and time combinations. There was such strong and persistant campaigning from the OGS community to bring in one unified rank that anoek eventually capitulated. Later, when doing testing during the design and implementation for the new glicko rating system, he discovered that the combined overall rank was a better overall predictor for game outcome than the expanded specific ratings, so he kept it based on that evidence.

Since the single combined overall rank was both heavily campaigned for and also technically performs better, I would be very surprised if anoek ever switched back to expanded board and/or time rankings being the primary focus.


How do you measure this? You say it’s inaccurate - based on what?

Actually there is a lot of data that says its as accurate as we could hope for, and it is regularly (every few years or so) calibrated.

It’s a big claim to say it’s inaccurate in the face of this - you’d need good evidence to support it.

As Conrad said - what do you mean “fake”?

It’s calibrated against the major ranking systems - how more “real” can you get?


the only factor that should change your rank is based on how you perform against other human players in 19x19, not on 9x9,13x13,playing against computers, entering tournaments where assistance is allowed, etc. the problem I am having is I am facing opponents that should be higher ranked than what they are supposed to be(I know it’s a difficult server compared to fox and tygem) maybe some portions of players on ogs who’s fine with mixing up ranks but they clearly don’t realize it’s affecting others as well.

1 Like

Rankings necessarily effect all users. What you propose effects others just as our current system effects you.

1 Like

Wasn’t that data there when there was a huge fault with the ranking system (which got fixed last year)? How is it possible that this data (that we use to prove the system is working) didn’t give alarming results back then? It is evidence that a huge fault within the system can easily look ok on paper. I have a hard time believing this data which show OGS handicap games yield the most accurate results.

I’d like to remind, that a few players complained about that particular issue with the ranking system back then and were argued against by the team in a similar fashion to this until it turned out they were right, the ranking system was tweaked and it helped fix the volatility issue. In face of that experience, I would expect the team to be more critical of the system and it’s fullproofness and less sure of themselves when defending the system against a user who had bad experiences with it.

I agree with most of what Aiygo says about the ranking system and that seems to be the consensus on all platforms except these forums where the team (who have proven to be overtly defensive of OGS most of the time) dominates most of these conversations.

If nothing else, his point regarding the bot tournaments affecting actual ranks should be taken into consideration. Alan Turing tournament and it’s alikes affecting actual player ranks is just beyond ridicilous.


To be clear, players can take part in bot tournaments on OGS; tournaments where youre allowed and expected to use bot assistance (Alan Touring Tourney being the one i’m aware of) and the results of these games where you use bot assistance affect your actual rank.

Anyone who I have told this to had a very hard time believing it and understanding the reasoning for these tournaments. So, I’m lost on why they are still a thing, especially when the ranks are being complained about so often. It is being brought up but yet not adressed somehow, despite being strange beyond dispute.