SE4 Rating System - Page 55

Electrum · #**541** March 22nd, 2004, 12:53 AM

Slynky,

Please make the Koth game Electrum v Primative a rated game.

Thanks

Grandpa Kim · #**542** March 22nd, 2004, 03:00 AM

Primitive, that looks okay to me, though I think the winner in a three player should get a bit more. I understand what you are trying to do, but...

Quote:

using loosing players ranking vs the average of the remaining players rankings

...but could you explain this a little better.

(Still like my 1.5 root formula better.

)

Slynky · #**543** March 23rd, 2004, 04:33 AM

Site updated:

1 game completed (Baron Grazic vs Fire)
1 game added (Electrum vs Primitive)

(If I have missed a posting other than what is listed below, please let me know)

Games needing rating computation (in this order):

4 player multi-player (Alneyan, Belisarius, Gecko, Slynky)

Alneyan vs Primitive

Joachim vs Warlord Ragnarok

Primitive vs RexTorres

primitive · #**544** March 25th, 2004, 12:23 AM

Just bumping my questions from 3 Posts down.

Anybody else than Grandpa care at all ?

Slynky ?

Slynky · #**545** March 25th, 2004, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by primitive:
Just bumping my questions from 3 Posts down.

Anybody else than Grandpa care at all ?

Slynky ?

The subject may have become, hmmmm, annoying

.

Baron Grazic · #**546** March 25th, 2004, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Slynky:

quote:
Originally posted by primitive:
Just bumping my questions from 3 Posts down.

Anybody else than Grandpa care at all ?

Slynky ?

The subject may have become, hmmmm, annoying .

Some of us are just too busy trying to find a strategy that will work against you guys, let alone work out what all those mathematical formulars mean.

Joachim · #**547** March 25th, 2004, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
Some of us are just too busy trying to find a strategy that will work against you guys, let alone work out what all those mathematical formulars mean.

Ditto!!

As to my two cents, again I dont mind what system as long as it is not too much to completely discourage large rating games.

Grandpa Kim · #**548** March 25th, 2004, 05:08 AM

Personally, I'm just waiting for you to decide, Slynky. After all, you're the one who has to deal with it. If I can't live with your decision, that's my problem.

Slynky · #**549** March 25th, 2004, 05:42 AM

I think I am in favor of Geo's formula with a twist. Let me see if I can explain it easily.

His original formula (a few pages down) was (to summarize) to average the score of the people who beat the first person out (and so on) and apply points. This resulted, as some people disagreed with, a result that simulated a single game.

So, my twist would be to adjust this "straight" score to vary the spread so that losses and wins would spread out more. And this is what people have been trying to do with other suggestions.

So, the best I can figure and the easiest on me would be to figure it the way Geo said and then multiply the points gained (or lost) by the square root of the number of players in the game being rated. So, (duh!), if 4 players were in the game, the square root modifier would be 2. This is probably a common number of people for a multiplayer game. But, if 9 (to make it easy) were in a game, the multiplier would be 3. One has to see 16 people in a game before the multiplier became 4. This, in my opinion, would lesson the effect (both on winners and losers) in a big game...while giving a pretty fair representation for the most common game. In other words, the bigger the game, the less chance that a loser would suffer a huge loss from a bad position (and less the chance a winner would gain a huge amount of points based upon his lucky starting position).

I think I will go with this, which I think is a fair representation of the suggestions we have read and attribute any disparity in such a rating to a "true chess" rating formula to luck, and a lack of true comparison to any chess tourney/game.

Slynky · #**550** March 25th, 2004, 05:56 AM

Thanks, Grandpa Kim.

I am convinced of a few things:

(1) Nothing we have talked about will be as precise as is measured in a chess game/tourney.

(2) Luck will even itself out over a number of games but it is more apparent that it will equal out over 1 x 1 games more as, was pointed out, than multi-player games as they Last for so long.

(3) No one would like being rated in a game of multiple players that would result in a possible loss of 100+ points even though there is a possible gain of 100+ points.

(4) Generally, I think people believe a multi-player game should result in more points lost or gained than a single game but not as much as equal to a single game times the number of players in a multi-player game. (I hope that makes sense)

(5) We want a way to compute scores as people are eliminated from a multi-player game.