League General Discussion Thread

I’m not opposed to trying an ELO (or another) system either but would worry that the small sample size is going to mess it up more substantially. I do think past results should matter each new year (As far as I’m aware, in the current scoring, they just matter until someone has played 3 games and then their score is based on the outcome of the games played in the current year. So their effect is to increase the score of the opponent in the early games). And I also think we need a reset each year to ensure some variation in who gets to play in the league finals. A longer term ELO with the relatively small number of games played may make it harder for new (or much improved) players to break in.

My view is that if it isn’t (that) broke don’t fix it. I don’t doubt there are some issues with scoring. But we are a small amateur (and very niche) league with a small number of games played and with variation in the number of games played by player. Nothing is going to be perfect. And I don’t think changes in scoring will dramatically shift how the final standings look. Of course if we can use a method that is more streamlined, easier to use (not just for gamerman but for who comes after), I’m not opposed to that either. But the existing method of scoring doesn’t strike me as particularly onerous either.

And if we want to avoid having too many players ranked E or M one way to address it is to just to shift the thresholds where one crosses over. E could be set at 5 and M at 6 or higher for example and that would spread things out more.

If I recall correctly, at Days of Infamy, it was a lifelong record.

I genuinely appreciate your feedback, @farmboy !
Always good to hear some different opinions.

Your idea of a fix would help combat the points inflation, for sure.
But as I said, that is the smallest of the issues. It would not fix any of the 7 major problems the current system has.
Now how broken is the system? I guess that’s subjective. It IS working, for sure. It creates a somewhat realistic ranking and most of the times the lower PPG player actually loses against the higher PPG player.
So in general, the higher the PPG, the better the player.

But in my opinion, that is a very low bar. If it didn’t fulfill this basic requirement, it wouldn’t be a working system at all. Our demand on a system should be higher than that, even if we are only an amateur league. We can still strive to be as professional as possible.

@farmboy said in League General Discussion Thread:

And I don’t think changes in scoring will dramatically shift how the final standings look.

This is the current ranking in the official spreadsheet.

This is the ranking in my automated spreadsheet:

But this is another ranking with the exact same rules. No formulas changed, no other entries, everything is the same. Just the order of calculations shifted.

Notice how gamerman went from rank 4 to rank 13!

Or another ranking. Again: same rules, same results, same formulas.

Now I don’t know about you but if a system can produce multiple different rankings depending on HOW you apply the rules, I personally would consider that system broken. We don’t even know who #1 is right now…

You did raise 2 concerns with an ELO system however and I want to address those:

The small number of games is offset in my system: The first few games have a bigger impact on ELO change. This gradually diminishes with the number of games until it settles at 10 completed games (exact number up for debate).
It would be completely negated by the way, if we use a lifelong ELO rating.

The other concern is how difficult it is for new players to enter the top ranks.
This is actually done super fast. If you win a handful of games against current top players, you will climb the ELO extremely fast and can reach the top spots.
I just tested it with my ELO system. A new player could claim the #1 rank in my ELO system after going 4-0 with 2 wins against top player Adam and another 2 wins against GeneralDisarray and ArthurBomberHarris.

That being said: How we choose the participants for yearly playoffs is another matter. We could only count the results of the calendar year. We could (and should) require a certain number of games played this year.
Right now the participants are largely the same group of players too. This would actually even change with ELO, for the better!

@MrRoboto thanks for the response and explanation.

One point to clarify. I’m not worried that an ELO will prevent people from entering the playoffs. But I am worried that trying to score over the longer term will. As long as the scoring for the playoffs is primarily determined by one’s play in a given year, than it should be fine with or without an ELO.

I certainly don’t have a great understanding of the math that goes into this, but if the issue is that the rules will produce different results depending on the order of the calculations than can one solution be simply being consistent in the order of the calculations?

I do think given the small and variable number of games most of us play (and that we don’t play everyone else), we are always going to find that the rankings won’t quite match up with reality, but it has always seemed to me that we are pretty close. And that is good enough for me. But I’m certainly open to trying alternatives.

A tangent here, I have been thinking how bids factor into games. Playing a game as a new player, against an M- or E-ranked player, there should be a way to make an allowance for a larger bid for the lower-ranked player palatable. It currently is not in those players’ interest from a PPG standpoint, as Mr Roboto has pointed out; bid has no impact on the points scored in the game, and winning against a Tier 3 opponent will bring down your PPG average if it is over 4.

Perhaps there is a solution, where we use the terms/bid and “current” player ranking at the start of the game to determine the points the game will award to each player upon completion?

For example, in PtV the average bid is ~Axis +9. If an E-ranked player instead grants the Tier 3 opponent an increased bid of +18, perhaps a victory over that opponent should then result in 5 points instead of 4.

Thanks for the words, gamerman.
Especially the last post: The fact that you take your position seriously and will do your very best to ensure the integrity of the league is invaluable. I think most if not all here are very grateful for what you do here.

I do understand that it feels like a coup to you, I can absolutely empasize with you! That’s actually the reason why I did not express interest in comoderator. In no way do I want you to feel threatened by me, that’s certainly not my intention!

There’s always tension when change is proposed. There is a reason why conservatives all around the world usually are the biggest group - as long as the current system is not totally broken that is.
Humans tend to be reluctant with change, when it’s working more or less.
And I do acknowledge that the current ranking system is doing fine. Otherwise it wouldn’t have sticked around all these years.

However, some of the concerns have been raised years ago. I can remember a discussion about winning against low Tier being bad for PPG a couple of years ago already. The idea of ELO has been swirling around the forums for years too.
While I did take part in that discussion and voiced my concern back then, I never fully went forward and took matters in my own hand, partly because I didn’t feel I’m in a position to go up against gamerman. It feels intimidating to challenge a dictators system, after all ;-) (using your word, not mine!)

So far, I have seen only people voting for an ELO system or people who are open for it, but none has spoken against it.
I am interested in more criticism, so that we arrive at the best possible outcome. Jkellers feedback for example convinced me that lifelong rating is more useful!

The most important thing at the end: I don’t want this to be a MrRoboto vs Gamerman thing. On the contrary, I want this system to be as simple and optimal as possible and with him continuing to lead all of us. I can gladly take care of managing / maintaining the rankings but I’m totally fine with just setting it up and gamerman then being in charge.

@mr_stucifer
That’s an interesting concept.

Upside:
Results would reflect the feat of overcoming an unusually high bid and still win or losing despite having big bids.

Contra:
It complicates the system.
It introduces math and more tactics into the bidding process and might lead to games with fewer bids, despite higher bids being necessary (giving the statistics).

@MrRoboto I think requiring a substantial tier differential and having a strict guidelines would make it fairly painless to implement, although deciding what those are is another matter. 😅

I am not liking the long term rating. I no i’m way down tho rankings but a reset each year gives me a fresh start each year. I’ve been here a very long time. other than some medical problems I have no vanished like others have. i do believe I’ve lost more than anyone here. i’m not sure but I think I’ve also played more than anyone here. I have about double of the post than any one. point is with the ranking now I have a chance of having a good year and moving up. How ever the only problem that I see is I can’t have a chance playing a better player because they don’t want there ranking to go down. Even when they win.
also I noticed that when these top players get 3 games in they stop playing so they’re in the top tourney. I think we all should have a chance playing each other and someone like me have a good dice game and win. not likely but it could happen. Also I pay every year so we can keep this league going. I think we should get points for that. (Just kidding,) Lol. but we need to donate more so we can keep it going. I no servers cost good money.
As far as the ranking system goes. the one thing that bothers me is we can’t all play each other in the league. we should. I mean I pay to play.

Thanks for your comments, dawg!

Actually, an ELO system would help all 3 points that you raised.

1. It would give incentive for top and medium players to play against you. I have not challenged you for a game this year because of the known reasons

2. Your PPG is kinda set after a certain number of games. Your 28 games brought you 75 points for example, which is 2.68 PPG. Even an extraordinary feat like winning against Adam, Gorshak or ArthurBomberHarris would only give you 8 more points, so 83 / 29 = 2.86 PPG.
   So your PPG would barely move, that’s why it’s hard for you to climb after a certain number of games. The reason: the current ranking represents the AVERAGE yearly result, not the current one.
   With an ELO-based system you ALWAYS have the chance to climb, at any point. There is always motivation for you to reach certain goals you set yourself. A win against a top player would catapult you quite a lot!

3. You are correct, sometimes 3 great results are enough for a good spot. And players could abuse it. Right now, Gorshak is #1 with his 3-0, even though none of the 3 wins were against top8 players and one was against #34.
   One could argue that scoring 8-1 is a bigger feat.
   So, without saying that’s what he is doing, it would be in Gorshaks best interest (if the goal is to optimize ranking) to stop playing for the year.
   An ELO system works completely different. More wins will always put you further and stopping at 3-0 will never get you a top spot.

So all of your points are arguments FOR a ELO rating :-)
And lifetime or not won’t be a huge difference there… It will only make the rankings more accurate

A way to ensure everyone can play against everyone would be to expand our playoff from 8 persons to 16 or 32.

This would only result in additional 1 or 2 extra games for the winner and if playoff games are prioritized I am sure they can be played fairly quickly and therefore allow for the additional game(s) during the year.

For those of us with a non chess background, (maybe only me) can you explain what ELO is? In the words of Midge Ure ‘this means nothing to me’!

I have no idea either.

I am working on the post to show it to you, as we speak!