That was my instant thought even before reading your post, in view @GreenAsJade’s decision.
Whenever I see statistics, I ask “Is it true?” I’m not an expert, but I did have a course in statistics, and I spent quite a few years editing technical manuscripts for Research I journals. I have seen how vulnerable statistics are to the assumptions of the researcher, the populations analyzed, and the variables controlled for. In the case of rank fluctuation, I find it difficult to believe that it is the same across the board. I would expect more stability in strong players, because they usually have a larger game population and they are less prone to stupid mistakes (a variable). My non-statistical impression (mainly from watching games) is that weaker players’ ranks are far less stable.
I wonder whether the fluctuation statistic derives from IRL games in association/federation play, or from online games. The former would have little if any sandbagging, and no other cheating of any sort. If that is the case, then I call into question the statistic’s applicability to online go, a very different environment. If the statistic derives from online games, then I wonder how it controlled for sandbagging and various forms of cheating in those games.
I think you greatly underestimate the effect of sandbagging, perhaps because of your own playing experience. Taking the three most common forms of cheating, I think it is safe to say that botting primarily occurs among the higher ranks (perhaps strong SDKs through the dans), sandbagging primarily affects mid-SDKs and below, although tailing off in effect at the weak end (where so many mistakes are made anyway), and score cheating is very largely a DDK/TPK phenomenon (partly because score cheats get weeded out by warnings and bans).
An enormous number of alt sandbaggers exist on OGS, they account for thousands (probably tens of thousands) of losses, and many (most?) are no longer detectable. As I stated before, I will not go into more detail than that for security reasons.
My observation is that ranks fluctuate by ± 1 for strong SDK/low dan players, on internet servers as well as IRL games, and I didn’t see any effect of sandbagging or cheating on my rank. For DDKs I have much less playing experience. I know they are annoying in the 17k rank or BC class on IGS so I imagine the situation is similar on OGS (but I didn’t play many games as a DDK on the internet).
I found this thread through a different, more recent post.
I didn’t have a good experience with ? on KGS, so wanted to share:
I’ve played Go over 10 years. In the first couple of years, I played regularly enough to have a constant rank on KGS, but after that, I mostly prioritized playing in person.
When I would log back on KGS, my rank would be either ? or something like 3K?. I could never get games because people didn’t trust that rank. They were scared I was a sandbagger (even though I believe ? games did not affect the other player’s rank). This happened a couple of times and made me either “give up” or move to another Go server (Tygem, then Fox).
More recently, I started playing again after a long break. I came to OGS (because of the bad KGS experience). I feared the same would happen and it didn’t. I got a rank very quickly and easily found games. Frankly, this made me relieved. It was so much easier to get back into playing!
People are quick to judge, so I’d rather not have yet another label that’s difficult to get rid of / that people misconstrue.
sandbaggers will invent something anyway
but there are a lot of players who just stopped playing ranked for not evil reasons
this [7k?] feature will help those who likes to play unranked sometimes, but don’t like to play vs opponents that are Too far from them in rank
and it will not bother too much [7k?] themselves because they are not replaced with [?] completely
I mean the point is that it might make it harder for you to get games, because people might associate the ? mark even a 5k? as something to do with a being a sandbagger, when it could well just be that the person doesn’t want the stress of ranked games.
So I understand the point that it’s potentially introducing something that can be stigmatised, and that it might not actually solve any problems at all since
Or if you make them play X games, they play the X games and continue to sandbag.
I went back and reviewed my games on Fox, the home of sandbagging. I’m coming to the conclusion that I haven’t met many sandbaggers there. Some players may have consulted a bot, not sure. Mostly I just went on a streak of playing like crap.
Is it ? or 3K? which was problematic? Personally I’ve had ranks around 1d? multiple times and never had trouble finding an opponent with the automatch.
I haven’t gone back to KGS in many years. Part of the problem might have been location (I was living in Japan at the time, now I’m in Eastern Canada).
However, the ? also definitely played a factor: I could get ranked games fairly quickly when my rank was stable (i.e. no question mark), whereas when I had a ? or ?3K, there were very long wait periods (like 15-30+ mins w/o a game… at which point I would abandon and do something else).
Frankly, it’s not the best experience for someone that’s trying to get back into the game.
Also, I strongly believe that whatever solution is implemented should consider how it impacts the player experience everywhere. If you live in Western Europe / Eastern Americas, and play at typical peak times there, you don’t have the same experience as someone that lives and typically plays peak Australian Eastern time (or thereabout).
I don’t get sandbagging at all. A strong player keeps a weak rank by resigning from games he is winning? Ok by me, I get a win and perhaps I learn something from the analysis of the game. I thought people play to get a better rank or win tournaments, so sandbagging just boggles me.
I would define 2 axes, one for fun and one for progress. They don’t exclude each other.
A sandbagger is no more interested by progress but by crushing much weaker players. Winning a fair game is even out of interest. His fun is in demonstrating how crushing he can be.
Humans have obscure and clear sides and sandbagging is one of these very uncivilized and primitive behaviors, not only detrimental to the crushed players but to the overall rating system.
OGS and other servers do a good job in excluding those kind of players. One of the worst place historically was yahoo games some years ago. No mod and a universe of sandbagging.
Getting a free win may be fine to you, but being completely crushed by an opponent against which you were supposed to be pretty evenly matched is frustrating for many.
Beyond personal opinions, it also messes with the ranking system.
its not very hard to find and accept custom challenge of beginner while having correct rank yourself
main part is that they have weak rank written near their name. So opponent expects easy game. And then opponent is surprised.
Its not safe to spook people on real street. They use Go instead.
