| |
BGonline.org Forums
same as ABT standings (almost)
Posted By: Barry Silliman In Response To: same as ABT standings (almost) (Chuck Bower)
Date: Thursday, 24 May 2012, at 7:24 p.m.
Hi Chuck, the USBGF points at the moment typically mirror the ABT points.
2009 doesn't match as not all of the tournaments for 2009 were entered in the USBGF database. E.g., the 2009 tournament for Pittsburgh is not entered.
There are plans for the USBGF to develop a Master point system that will give points for participation, for match wins, that will favor active players, etc. -- e.g. points may "decay" over time. I believe this is similar to how tennis and maybe other sports and games keep track of points.
Rich Munitz and perhaps others have come up with a great formula, it is just a SMOP to get it implemented, but since all USBGF work is done by volunteers who sometimes have other interests and needs in life, don't hold your breath waiting for it.
As USBGF "Ratings Editor", when I'm not fending off the paparazzi that holding such a lofty title attracts, I do provide a minor service by extracting the USBGF tournament results from backgames.org and segregating the ratings into 3 categories - OPEN, ADVANCED and NOVICE, which get published in the USBGF bi-monthly magazine.
E.g. if a player plays in multiple levels, for instance as a natural progression through the ranks, they start each level with a 1500 rating and 0 experience, and keep a separate rating at each level. It is obvious which category the ABT main events fall under, and typically Masters or Super jackpots go under "OPEN" and Amateur or Limited Jackpots fall under "ADVANCED".
Events like the USBGF National Championship are rated as OPEN because Open level players play in them, along with players of all skill levels. So for instance someone could play in Novice events primarily but if they entered the USBGF National Championship e.g. at the new york open or the LA open they might have an OPEN level rating as a result.
We only publish the top 10 at each level in the USBGF magazine. As a result of this segregation among categories, the ELO ratings published in the magazine differ slightly from what shows up on backgames.org. Here's an example of why this is the case. Say player A plays in Advanced and achieves a rating of 1700 and moves to Open. Say player B in Open defeats player A in A's first open match. Within backgames.org, Player B gets credit for beating a 1700 ELO player. But in my calculations, Player A starts with a separate Open ELO of 1500 so Player B only gets credit for beating a 1500 ELO player.
If this is clear to anybody, please let me know and I'll try to make it more confusing. I personally think the sample size of matches is so small for the vast majority of players that to get hung up on these ELOs is counterproductive anyway.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.