| |
BGonline.org Forums
title hierarchy
Posted By: Henrik Bukkjaer In Response To: title hierarchy (Stick)
Date: Sunday, 3 April 2011, at 7:58 p.m.
He he Stick somehow I knew you'd say that ;-)
I'm not sure if Peter Hallberg reads here on a regular basis, nor if he'd post responses to this. Let me try in his place:
You must consider, that you don't have that many "chances" to get the 5 matches done since they have to be from World Championships, Nordic Open, Danish Championships or the Danish League - all other tournaments are currently not counted. The idea was that it should be live matches, with appropriate playing strenght for the opponents, and with enough riding on the match to call it "pressure".
Furthermore the match length criteria disqualifies most consolation and all last chance matches.
You have to score 5 within a set time. Actually this particular time criteria was one I got in because I thought it otherwise would be a matter of playing enough matches then you'd end up with 5 strong ones - simple variance - so to put on a time-limit (in combination with the above limited number of matches available) would make the norm state that the player was actually playing at a certain level at a given time of his career. I argued for a one year window, we ended up at two years.
Regarding the toughest possible settings, I know that Peter has tried to contact the XG team about this, and we're still working on the subject. I'm not the expert, having only used XG extensively for the 2 week trial available but: Of course outplays should not count. And the settings would preferably be "symmetric" around the error point, so you don't get lower PR as the usual "go deep on errors" analysis yields. Eg. the good old Snowie attack where you 2-ply your match then rollout all the errors at a quick setting then rollout all the remaining errors at a heavy setting. Each iteration possibly removing errors that might have been. So "correct" plays within a certain threshold should be analyzed deep as well (to get the opposite of outplays).
Now, finally the IM title should be considered somewhat at the same level as it is in chess. You're far better than most players, but still have a long way to go to be at the very top. The GM title is the top level players, SGM the icing on the cake. Due to the nature of backgammon vs. chess (the number of "levels"), we've ended up giving perhaps a few more IMs but tightened up the GM title a bit. The idea was that a DBgF IM is a player that would be able to compete at the best flight of a big tournament and win it on a lucky day. We are naming only 6 GMs and about 8 times as many IMs. In chess currently you have 1000+ GMs and 3000+ IMs world wide. Of course the bot norm is only counting from today and that will be the final norm that some IMs need to become GMs so over time it will probably even out a bit.
You can score no more than 2 bot-norms, so the bot norm would never get you further than IM. And if you for a period of time plays below 3.5 (tough settings, in top matches/championships), then you probably ARE at the IM level (as we have meant that to be).
HOWEVER we'll do tight monitoring of the matches that flow in, and adjust the level if needed. Should too many of the matches be under 3.5 the bar will be raised to 3.0 - we need to get a feel for this. Also if we start allowing more tournaments to count (especially tournaments that have less at stake and with possible easier opponents), then the level - or timeframe - should be adjusted accordingly.
Any input in regard to what settings you would consider best, for norming strong players, will be appreciated.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.