But the point is that all these things grow more and more true the weaker the players. It’s not a 50 50 at TDK either. If the players have different glicko ratings, they are not literally flipping a coin either. I think the analogy is valid.
3 Likes
If you’re weaker than 25k it is a huge problem… imagine if you have to always play against 7 dans and the system was insisting that you were both the same rank… it’s not really fun to get slaughtered every game
9 Likes
That could be fixed by simply removing that barrier as we talked about in another two threads(although I don’t know where to find them). I am completely up for doing that, especially because I don’t see why I can’t have a friendly match be ranked against a 2k if I can play a ranked tournament game or ladder challenge against the same person or someone ranked better. I win occasionally against some of them(I am 2-18 against a 7k and 6-22 against a 9k, also I got my first true win(I think) against a 4k yesterday), and all of those games were ranked even if I was ranging from 16-22k during most of that time. Those upset wins do happen, and I think those wins and losses should be allowed to get ranked.
Sorry I got kind of off topic.
4 Likes
Yeah, it makes sense that you can’t play handicap games beyond 9 stones, but for playing even games, I think we can just trust glicko to handle the mechanics.
3 Likes
As a 25k, I think we should not make ranks go past 25k because their are a lot of tournaments that I enjoy playing in, but I am worried that if you change this than I will not be able to participate in them because of rank restrictions.
Presumably most tourneys with 25k as the minimum are so because 25k is the minimum and not because they didn’t want 30k players. So the minimum would just decrease in those tourneys open to all players.
10 Likes
I’ve never seen rank’s above 25k. The problem is :How do you lose to players weaker than you?
Their glicko ranking is worse than a 25k, it just shows it as a 25k. That is how you would win or lose to weaker or stronger opponents if you are one. I would need to test out what would happen if two people played their first game ranked against each other to see who would be marked as weaker and who would be marked stronger, but that is the only thing I can think of like that. That may be a job for the beta site since I can play ranked games against myself freely there(I think).
1 Like
Well all I can say is this… for someone who is good at the game, and has been playing for years 25k rank seems like a joke! But for people like me, who are playing for less than few weeks 25k player is a monster. And I can kinda understand… Due to quarantine my wife learned to play chess like 3 weeks ago. And it’s really weird to see her struggle with players and bots that have 400-500 rating
10 Likes
I think that there is no evidence to the statement “below 25k it’s a coinflip”.
Those putting that forwards should supply some evidence. Note that to get that evidence you’ll need to delve into TPK’s glicko rating because we don’t have rank measuring it.
I suspect its untrue, because I’ve seen TPK players who were driven deep into low glicko initally
then steadily improving. If it were a coinflip, surely at that rating level ratings themselves would bottom out because those players would win and lose on a random basis - their ranks should not go down further.
This does not happen: their ranks do go down further, and then come up again.
The goal of showing ranks in that region is to give those people visibility into this progress.
11 Likes
I don’t follow it religiously, but I think my Glicko rating changed by about 200, while my rank remains unchanged. I’d say that’s a lot.
6 Likes
I am sorry, but that is just completely overblown comparison that does not really make sense. If you are saying there is a significant measurable difference between 30k and 25k, I am not convinced, but fair enough, it is up to discussion. If you are saying the chances compare to higher ranked games 7 stones apart, that’s just nonsense in my opinion, pardon the honesty. Especially since those games more often than not take place on 9x9 where you easily throw an otherwise won game by a single mistake. Also you could harly argue that getting from 30k to 20k takes on average the same time as getting from 1k to 7d, which I also find relevant.
Every player hits a wall every now and then, for some players it is a SDK for some players it is a 15k and some players may be hung up on 25k for a long time, that’s just how it is, some of the ranks take work to beat. But to me, that makes it worth it when you finally rank up, because you know it really meant something.
Well those who want the current system to change should be the ones supplying evidence in my opinion 
Again, I know it does not sound like it, but I absolutely (cross my heart and hope to die) don’t mind having the range extended to 30k (if you think you can convince anoek to do it 
) It is unlikely to affect me in any way and if it will make you guys happier, awesome. Just trying to provide counter arguments for a fruitfull discussion and am just genuienly concerned it will not have the effect you are hoping for, and will in fact just make it harder to find games and the progression in rank less meaningfull.
2 Likes
The evidence that a change is needed is seen in the graphs of TPKs.
Here is a topical one:
Note that in the first quarter of the year this person struggled to win a game.
These TPK games were not “tosses of the coin”, this person was losing them all.
Then around mid-April something clicked and they started winning. See how far they had to climb up in glicko before this is reflected as their first change ever in rank …
If the argument were true that 25k games are coinflips, this graph would not dive down in this way, it would wobble around 25k.
10 Likes
Well, knowing by chance, who’s graph this is
In the vast majority those were games against much stronger opponents, which of course would be unlikely wins. (as the graph also shows).
It does not say much about games against other 25k
4 Likes
Yeah I guess that is a fair observation that it isn’t necessarily evidence one way or the other about whether TPKs are cointoss, due to that variable.
(Hah - handy how that colouration shows this point dramatically, if you look properly eh!)
But what it does show is that a person can be driven far down below 25k in rank and have to climb back up, wondering why their victories are not delivering rank change…
6 Likes
Well to throw in another idea, perhaps it might help to make a bottom limit? Say humans cannot fall below 900 as that would be too close to just RNG? It would solve the “too high to climb problem” once a player starts winning in these (perhaps unusual) cases where the rank gets demolished by some mass resignations or something… Not sure it is what you are all looking for, but just an idea.
1 Like
Just a note: In an even game, the chance to win for a OGS 8d against a 9d is approx the same as for a 28k against a 25k. Ranks are tight packed down there.
8 Likes
I think it would be a great idea, except it would probably distort the rank pool.
1 Like
I think the only way to sort this and provide enough evidence (if we really need it) is to host a sitewide 25k only tournament.
Of course I don’t really mean this is the only way, I just think it sounds fun, and would actually provide some data.
7 Likes