| |
BGonline.org Forums
What a shame...a proper ratings list would really enhance our game (long and opinionated)
Posted By: neilkaz In Response To: American Backgammon Association (Matt Reklaitis)
Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2009, at 6:49 p.m.
First of all, you and Laila are to be commended for your efforts in regards to trying to resurrect and maintain KG's list.
It is a sad loss to BG that this list was dropped, but based on the fact that you ran into some uncooperative directors, I understand why you two gave up.
It is sickening to read that some closed minded directors were concerned about the impact on attendance. Now we all know that directing is a very difficult and non rewarding job and that those that take the loads of time and risk their money to run an event really have to have some input on the way things are.
However, with all do respect to those directors, whom ever they were, attendance of weaker players was just fine during the years that we had KG's list. ROFL at the thoughts that this list would keep weaker players away. I ask those from countries with well run BG organizations..ie like Denmark..does their ratings list keep weaker players away?
A good and well maintained worldwide ratings list would be very useful for some purposes.
1) It would help really establish who the best players are. The best player is the one who wins the most matches vs the toughest competition, year in and year out. We play matches against humans, and not some bot and BG vs humans is certainly much more than the ER contest some players think is all that matters.
1a) Here's how I'd use a well maintained ratings list to shed much light on who the best players are. I'd take a weighted average of a player's rating over the last few years. This would smooth out fluctuations do to luck to some extent and the weighting would value current results somewhat more than past..ie taking into account that the player really could have improved his game rather than just being lucky. Of course, a player would have to be reasonably active to make the top 32 list.
2) A ratings list could also be used to prevent some of the sand bagging that continues to occur at ABT and other events where players play advanced rather than championship. IMHO, at a typical largish ABT event with 45 players in Adv, typically 3 or 4 truly belong in championship and are better than at least 1/3 of the champ players.
Unfortunately the KG ratings list was compromized by reporting and inclusion issues right from the start. I know of two directors that basically only reported events from their club where they did well. Of course, weekly and semi-weekly club events never should have been rated in the first place since they aren't serious enough for everyone to want to play their best. Monthly T's that draw players from a reasonable area should be rated.
An example of inclusion is as follows, and it affected my rating at the start. The Boston Cavendish monthlies were rated but only the main and not the conso. I won 4 straight consos..ie 15-0 that weren't rated. I griped to Robertie as to why and he said that they had to draw the line somewhere...to which I replied, then why are weeklies rated from other places, like DC? And, of course, there were some years when big European events even like MC were rated and others when not..etc etc. Much of these inclusion issues were simply unintentional, however.
However, if a list continues for a decade or so, you'll find that things even out (unless there's fraudulently selective reporting) as the cream has time to rise to the top, and that the events they won but weren't rated will be more likely to be balanced out by poor performances that weren't rated.
Once again, Matt.. thx for your efforts in regards to the ratings list
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.