| |
BGonline.org Forums
Clarification & more
Posted By: Chuck Bower In Response To: 2008 Giants list voting (Chuck Bower)
Date: Monday, 29 October 2007, at 4:28 p.m.
I have come to the realization that my previous (above) comments may have been overly negative. That wasn't the intent.
There is no perfect+practical system of evaluating relative strengths of players. There have (and still are) several systems, all having their own shortcomings. Some examples:
ABT: Advantages: objective; easily spelled out and understood; very difficult /impossible to manipulate. Disadvantages: regional (US events only); measures cumulative performance as opposed to absolute performance.
ELO rankings: Advantages: objective; has potential of measuring absolute preformance; Disadvantage: long settling time; tends to be regionalized in practice; susceptible (in some cases) to manipulation.
Bot analyzed ratings: Advantages: insensitive to luck (thus short settling time); objective; measures absolute performance; Disadvantages: in practice, susceptible to manipulation by selective reporting; in practice, regionalized (e.g. for the current Ristov-Nielsen system, taken from GamesGrid and selected live matches).
Survey/voting (Giant 32): Advantages: democratic; Disadvantages:: subjective; potentially regionalized (see early years results with underrepresentation of non-US players).
I've said before that all of the above have their values. Best if we take all into account rather than just one being the blessed world ranking.
I find it interesting that with the exception of some online ratings (like FIBS), the Giant 32 is the longest running ranking system. KG's ELO and Johanni's Snowie Rating were good while they lasted, but have unfortunately died off. That says a lot about the persistence of Giant-32's proprietors (Cole, Jacobs, Yamin).
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.