Recognising and fully implementing ranks beyond 25 kyu

[Maharani]

As always, the conclusion was, “You all have made good points, but we’re not going to change anything”

[Groin]

It’s strange that for a go site so much appreciated by beginners, this extension is still missing? A matter of priorities I guess.

[bugcat]

Maybe I’m illiterate, but I haven’t read anyone give a reason for floor-capped ranks apart from tradition and aesthetics. I used to think that way, but now I’d say: just allow the beginners their <25k or <30k ranks. It’s not hurting anyone.

[Eugene]

I think that one reason is that @anoek is not convinced that handicapping will work properly at those ranks.

IE is 27k vs 28k really worth one stone, etc.

At the time we had this discussion before, @anoek was in the middle of the big rating update, so this was on the back burner, and I think there was an idea that it would get a look after.

My own opinion is “who really cares, at that rank, how approximate the handicapping is”, but this might be a bit blasé of me.

[topazg]

I think we also discussed that in some detail above. As far as I could see, there seemed to be a general sentiment that “incorrect handicapping” is only a small issue for those with relevant ranks, and “rank display below 25k” is a clear and positive feature for the same group. I really don’t think even “the handicapping system being crazily and wildly off” would be enough of a problem to offset the advantages.

Obviously both are legitimate factors in a decision, and the other obvious “negative” of implementing something is the time and effort involved doing so. I really do think it would be a mistake though to hold off on implementing this purely (or even primarily) because of a lack of certainty of having a super reliable handicap system for those ranks

[jiveo]

Same thoughts. I’d also vote for displaying ~30k-32k.

Here’s my data points:

1. I’ve risen to middle-DDK now but this would have helped selecting opponents better when I started as ~24k. AFAIR, some 25k made for tough games and some “25k” were surprisingly easy to play against.

2. I’ve noticed that some strong players have a tendency of putting a wide range of ranks into one big group “too weak to care”, perhaps making it harder to put oneself into shoes of a TPK.

3. I’m slightly surprised the handicap point dominating the discussion so much. IME, the absolute majority of games (both ranked and unranked) I’ve seen and I’ve played between 25k-15k were without handicap, and many of those were several ranks apart. As, say, 21k I played plenty of games against 25k which I’d often (but not always) win, and plenty of games against 19k-17k which I’d often (but not always) lose. The pleasure of occasionally winning a game against a stronger opponent is something to consider; the learning value of losing to an opponent nominally weaker than you but who caught on one of your weaknesses is a good learning, too.

4. Corollary to 2) and 3), I suspect that playing priories are different depending on the rank range. I can imagine how 50% win/lose-chance is important when one’s rating is high enough, but I doubt that many TPKs would care or even notice. On the other hand, marking your progress and getting a motivation boost is hard to overestimate.

[Gia]

@jiveo

a wide range of ranks into one big group “too weak to care”

It’s an uncomfortable truth, but that’s basically the issue.

[gennan]

@Gia

It’s an uncomfortable truth, but that’s basically the issue.

Maybe it’s true for some stronger players, but there are also teachers who are strongly in favour of recognising lower grades in the interest of their students.