Ladder Advantages To TCP/IP Players--What To Do?

[Treeburst155]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zahl:

There's one inherent problem in systems that take victory level into account. You could score four brilliant, but only narrow wins against state of the art opponent and then commit a major blunder in the fifth game, resulting in a total defeat. Your opponent would have negated all of the wins, all thanks to your horrible mistake in one game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say your narrow victories are not "brilliant" simply because they were narrow. Major blunders resulting in Total Victory for your opponent are definitely something to avoid, especially if you're only managing narrow victories in other games.

Treeburst155 out.

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Treeburst155]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yobobo@TH:

But again win % means nothing.

If I played 20 -900 rated players and had 10 minor wins, and you played 20 +1050 rated players and made 10 total wins. What would the % mean? We would still show the same win %.

How about the top dogs link showing ratings from 20 and under games played, 20 - 50 games played or something like that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a great idea IMO! People could see a Top Dogs list consisting of others who have played a similar amount of games. Very nice idea.

Treeburst155 out.

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[yobobo@TH]

Ok, here we go,

We now have 20 and under games played sorted by rank http://tournamenthouse.com/CM/TTopDogs.shtml

One more thing, we now have a great forum for any TH/CM related topics http://thforums.com

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: yobobo@TH ]

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: yobobo@TH ]

[zahl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155:

I would say your narrow victories are not "brilliant" simply because they were narrow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because a win is narrow doesn't mean it's not brilliant! Agassi would beat Sampras 3-2 and it could very well be game of the year or Agassi's best performance that year. Then you are giving him one point for a narrow victory. Please.

If both players have equal chances before the game and both play nearly perfectly, then obviously the result will be a draw or a narrow victory. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that such a win is worth less, in fact several times less, than a total win that was possible only because Champion had a really bad day. You are effectively penalizing hard fought battles between elite players and rewarding inferior games.

This is why they don't consider victory levels in NBA, NHL, etc.

[Treeburst155]

Zahl,

I do believe you are right on this "degree of victory" thing. I've never looked at it that way before.

Treeburst155 out.

[Wreck]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

But players new to the ladder are not the only ones with a score of 1000 and being more dangerous. In my case I would tend to rate me as more dangerous than my score implies, because my score is ruined by playing top players almost exclusivly.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a note on how I do things, which might be food for thought. For players with a lot of games played, rating is the best stat. Second is opponents' rating. For those with only a few, rating does not mean that much yet; won-lost is more important. However, just as important is the opponents' average. Redwolf here, for instance, has a 1014 rating, with 1153 opponents. Of course he only has 9 games played, another thing to look at. That means it might just be luck... but probably not. This is an opponent likely to be better than his rating.

Regarding a true newbie at 1000: even the best of these is unlikely to have seen all the tricks of the trade that one needs to deal with at TH. For instance I am not going to spend the time with an unknown playing anything but a smallish meeting engagement; I know how to play an ME because I have played many of them. But one has to learn how to play MEs. I don't fear such opponents. Maybe I will when I get up to 1800 or something and have to get a major or lose points... but... I doubt it.

[Wreck]

Another note about the TH system. I agree with Treeburst and others who have pointed out that it is still young, and that the ratings are still settling, and therefore there is a minor problem for email players.

But at the same time the relative youth of the system opens up possibilities. If you want high relative rank, you can get it. Each win is worth perhaps 10 points on average, depending on win level of course. So if you play 10 games and win all 10, you will get to at least 1100 rating. That's good enough to be ranked #19 or so. With 20 games, all wins, you can get to 1200, or #8. If you are pretty good, and just stick to playing newbies or players with low ratings, you can rack up wins pretty easily. An exemplar here might be Sergeant Huang, who with but 16 wins (and zero losses), holds the 8th rank. I have never seen him, so I bet he is an email player.

I think most people are playing for much more than the ranking or rating, though. A bit part of it is just that it is good fun.

IMO one of the great things about TH is that anyone can play the highest rated players there pretty easily. The only one I have had any problem playing at all is von, and that's only because he is in Denmark and therefore our evenings never align. But I have still played him two and half times.