Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Yeah... what a funny rating system(((. I voted "for" it, but now I'm looking at it and realizing that to get out of the negative ratings and back to my initial 1600, I need at least 3-4 wins against top players:D. And someone can play 1-2 games, maybe win against someone from the top three thanks to a generator victory, and suddenly they're on top:smile52:. Why bother playing the whole season:rolleyes: ...
Ибу ибуди - хуйдао муди - Шаг за шагом можно достигнуть цели (китайская мудрость)
Кто к нам с пером придёт, тот от пера и погибнет!:smile51:
In the alternative ranking, only pure skill is considered, without bonuses for tournaments and the number of games played.
+100 I looked at this table, and it seems that players like DuHo and Javdet are ranked surprisingly low. I've played against them, and they clearly have a high level of skill.
Here, Sticky, now you'll also be getting criticism)). But that's a good thing, it means there's interest. Let's take a look? Without harsh judgment or unwarranted praise, let's just let a hundred flowers bloom for now. And in a couple of months, if it shows promise, we'll make some preliminary conclusions...
Стратегия - искусство возможного.
Первое правило форума : "Хвалу и клевету приемли равнодушно И не оспаривай глупца" (с)
Новичкам: ВНИМАТЕЛЬНО перечитайте ВЕСЬ первый пост по нижеприведенной ссылке и 90% ваших вопросов отпадут( на остальные 10% с удовольствием отвечу): Правила онлайн игр
Wouldn't it turn out that players with high ratings would refuse to play with low-rated players?
Honestly? It will. It's better than inflating ratings in this way with the current system.
It was well thought out by specialists and is actually used in WCG.
It was well thought out by specialists, but it is not used in WCG, but in a game that was one of its disciplines, i.e., a very popular game.
Sticky, will you constantly keep track of all this?!
Honestly? I don't know. I will definitely keep track of it for the next 4 months, with a frequency of every 1-2 days, as promised (unless unforeseen situations occur). If anything, a replacement can always be found.
I looked at this table, and it seems that players like DuHo and Javdet are ranked suspiciously low.
I don't remember about DuHo, but Javdet didn't win against anyone in this season. He has about 3 wins and 8 losses (all from memory), so it will take some time for him to improve his ranking.
Now, about the main thing... I want to not award bonus points for Tournaments. Basically, my statement:
In the alternative ranking, only pure skill is taken into account, without bonuses for Tournaments and the number of games played.
Why? Bonuses are already awarded in the existing ranking - one, the ranking without bonuses is more objective - two. But if the community wants it, I will keep track of and award bonuses for places after the Tournament.
Today, I will also award points from Tournament games.
Could you create a similar table for autumn as well, please? You were planning to do it for several seasons anyway. Besides, it's a bit difficult to judge in winter.
And is there any point in updating it more often than it is currently?
I can't. I spent a lot of time on it for half a season, not to mention the tediousness of this task. And for accurate calculations, it would have been necessary to start in the autumn.
And is there any point in updating it more often than it is now?
There's no need to update it every day. It will simply become tiresome (it will be interesting, but not for very long. Then you'll also start running out of time :D). Once a week is more than enough.
And regarding the ranking: I'm flattered, of course, that I'm listed near Palladin :D :D :D (even though I'm not actually close to him...:D), but I like the ranking itself, and it's not just because of that. Overall, I think it's worth continuing to develop this ranking.
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
It will take about 2 days of pure time. Are you up for it?
Are you calculating everything manually with a calculator? Maybe we should ask our esteemed vbn to write a small program for calculating? We could also divide the year into seasons and assign them to volunteers :D. I'll calculate one season, Kostyan will calculate the second :D, and someone else can calculate the third.
Are you manually counting using a calculator? Maybe you should ask the esteemed vbn to write a small program for calculating? You could also divide the year into seasons and assign them to volunteers :D. I'll calculate one season, Kostyan will calculate the second :D, and someone else will calculate the third)))
Hehe. Then you should have counted everything from last year's winter season. I think there's no point in making it complicated; let's start the count from this winter, and by summer, we'll have a perfectly adequate situation. Although... If you really want to, go ahead and count; there's a link to the program in the first post. I can explain how to count via ICQ. But I think your desire will fade after recalculating the first 30 pages :smile27: And we have about 300 pages + all the tournaments :eek:
In the Elo rating system, it is accepted that the transition from one class of play to the next occurs approximately every 200 rating points. If the difference between two players is 200 points, the stronger player wins with a probability of 76%; if the difference is 400 points, the probability will be 91%. A difference of 600 points means that the stronger player wins almost always (97%). If the ratings of both players are equal, the probability of victory for one of them is 50%. These probabilities, of course, do not take into account a player's sporting form at any specific moment. At the lower class level, the Elo rating more often gives incorrect predictions of the result, as players of this class make unpredictable mistakes more frequently.
The less often a chess player loses, the more accurately their rating can be estimated. The most accurate rating can be obtained based on tournaments in which players of approximately equal strength compete. The Elo rating system is based on the assumption that the strength of each chess player can be represented as a random variable following a normal distribution. The calculation of a specific player's rating based on the results of any tournament is based on comparing the number of points they scored with the expected number of points predicted based on their rating. If, by the end of the tournament, the number of points scored is greater than the predicted value, then the player's rating increases. If, by the end of the tournament, the number of points scored is less than the predicted value, then the player's rating decreases.
Imagine what a pain in the ass this will turn into. Well, in principle, we can find out Dirty_Player' same personal opinion here
Thank you to the author of the alternative rating! I voted "FOR".
Question:
How does this rating take into account the fact that at the start, everyone has the same rating, and it is beneficial to initially attack weak players to gain maximum points, and then play against stronger players?
Moreover, playing more games at the start achieves two goals: you increase your rating and harm your competitors, as they will no longer receive as many points from the opponents you have defeated.
КостяN
