Unofficial spring '42 league

Regardless, the game winner should report whether Axis or Allies were used by the winner, if a bid, to whom and for how much, and whether Low Luck or dice - that, and date.  Tracking these statistics by player matchup is the only thing that’s going to support claims that Axis or Allies have an advantage, and we may as well keep good records considering it isn’t much more trouble.

@Granada:  Re:  “publishing a new complete ladder” - what’s the rush, Gran?  Sounds like you really wanna get moving on this!  Also, what was that about a “perfect world”?  I think you meant to reprimand me for something, but I’m afraid I missed your meaning.

As far as FICS or whatnot - I’m TOTALLY AGAINST IT.  Weak players will be very popular as stronger players try to boost their ratings, and stronger players will have a harder time finding opponents.  Any rating system that always rewards a winner with points risks this happening.

'Far as I know, XBox did some serious statistical ratings research - they put out a paper that I read a month or so ago for fun, can’t remember too much of the specifics.  IMO FIDE stuff is in the right direction, or at least a system that doesn’t ALWAYS reward the winner with points.  But I will say that I heard there are better system than FIDE’s (wouldn’t know personally, as I don’t track rating systems, so maybe someone more familiar with that sort of thing can comment), and I have heard that chess players game FIDE’s system.  (Although with chess politics the way they are, I’m not sure if I’d blame the rating system or politics or both.)

Improvements to the chess rating system are indeed being discussed. I’m going to live dangerously and post a link, hoping that it won’t be considered spamming: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6687

It’s totally possible to set up a system that will avoid undue boosting of ratings by playing against weak opponents.

@Bunnies:

Regardless, the game winner should report whether Axis or Allies were used by the winner, if a bid, to whom and for how much, and whether Low Luck or dice - that, and date.  Tracking these statistics by player matchup is the only thing that’s going to support claims that Axis or Allies have an advantage, and we may as well keep good records considering it isn’t much more trouble.

I do agree on this.

@Bunnies:

@Granada:  Re:  “publishing a new complete ladder” - what’s the rush, Gran?   Sounds like you really wanna get moving on this!  Also, what was that about a “perfect world”?  I think you meant to reprimand me for something, but I’m afraid I missed your meaning.

What I meant was, that unless you have computer doing it for you, you have to do it yourself. So lets say we would start a thread here called Bunny and Granny Unofficial Ladder. As the start you would publish the starting ladder after lets say first 50 league games are included and counted. After then, when any two players would play a game, they would count the points change themselves and include it into the the new ladder.

So lets say you would be 3rd with 1250 points, I would be 14th with 1050 points, you would win so you would get 6 points plus and I would get 6 points less. We would post the outcome of the game, who played what, whether ther was a bid, LL etc… and we would include it into the new edition of ladder: Bunny ovecomes Zhuk with 1256 and moves to 2nd , while Granada gets down with 1044 to the 16th. Does it make sense?

As for the other thing I did not want to “reprimand” you. I just say that it needlessly complicates things to squeeze two games into one result.

@Bunnies:

As far as FICS or whatnot - I’m TOTALLY AGAINST IT.  Weak players will be very popular as stronger players try to boost their ratings, and stronger players will have a harder time finding opponents.  Any rating system that always rewards a winner with points risks this happening.

This is correct. It can be resolved easily by including a ninth category, that in fact is included in the FICS counting – when the difference between the players is so large that if you win as the stronger player you get 0 points, while when you lose, you lose 16; with your opponent’s rating changing respectively.

So after this change the proposed system would look like this:

1. difference less then 40. Winner 8 / Loser 8.
2. difference 41-100. A. Higher ranked player wins: Winner +7 / Loser -7 B. Lower ranked player wins: Winner 9 / Loser -9.
3. difference 101-180. A. Winner 6 / Loser -6; B. Winner 10 / Loser -10.  
4. difference 181-280. A. Winner 5 / Loser -5; B. Winner 11 / Loser -11.
5. difference 281-400. A. Winner 4 / Loser -4; B. Winner 12 / Loser -12.
6. difference 401-540. A. Winner 3 / Loser -3; B. Winner 13 / Loser -13.
7. difference 541-700. A. Winner 2 / Loser -2; B. Winner 14 / Loser -14.
8. difference 701-880 A. Winner 1 / Loser -1; B. Winner 15 / Loser -15.
9. difference 881 and more. A. Winner 0 / Loser 0 B. Winner 16 / Loser - 16.

Where the option A. describes the situation when the player with higher rating wins, while option B. describes the situation when the player with lower rating wins.

I think it goes in the direction of the Elo-like chess rating system, but experts like Herr KaLeun must know much much more about this then I do. Would the system I propose make a sense to you?

This is all very interesting…I’m not terribly intuitive when it comes to math so I’ll have to try come back with a pot of coffee and digest all this.

To people who use or might use the Spring 42 league…would you prefer if you just use a numerical ranking system for competition instead of W/L records?

Naturally the nice thing about an automated ladder is it does the math for us.  But if it’s not TOO much maintenance then maybe we can do the math for ourselves until somebody comes along and programs an automated ladder system for us.

This also reminds me of a post Bung made recently in the TripleA War Club where he was interested in created a global A&A rankings system that went beyond just TripleA, but would incorporate the data from all the clubs.

@Zhukov44:

This is all very interesting…I’m not terribly intuitive when it comes to math so I’ll have to try come back with a pot of coffee and digest all this.

To people who use or might use the Spring 42 league…would you prefer if you just use a numerical ranking system for competition instead of W/L records?

Naturally the nice thing about an automated ladder is it does the math for us.  But if it’s not TOO much maintenance then maybe we can do the math for ourselves until somebody comes along and programs an automated ladder system for us.

This also reminds me of a post Bung made recently in the TripleA War Club where he was interested in created a global A&A rankings system that went beyond just TripleA, but would incorporate the data from all the clubs.

I am definitely willing to prepare the illustration of how the rating might work with the manual counting after lets say first 20-30 games of the league are played and at least ten players are involved.

Stickied thread for you guys.

Thanks for the sticky.

The link to the league forums on the TripleA War Club is here.  Come get your war on!

Thanks for the sticky.

The link to the league forums on the TripleA War Club is here.  Come get your war on!

http://www.tripleawarclub.org/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=16

Outdated so unstickied today.