Hello.

I'm a total beginner at Go, but I'm a 1750 Elo chess player.

I would like to know what each Go rank (kyu and dan) corresponds to approximately in terms of chess Elo rating.

In other words: if someone invested as much time in chess as in Go, and he had a rating of X Elo in chess, what would be his rank in Go approximately? (for different values of X)

Thanks in advance for your answers.

How many pears is an apple worth?

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

It depends on the price.

Time invested is a poor metric for comparison (it varies too much from one person to the next), but that doesn't mean one can't make a meaningful comparison. I think a better (rough) comparison is to see where one lies on a rank distribution graph. My very unscientific attempt to compare the first two histograms I could find (http://senseis.xmp.net/?KGSRankHistogram and http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/2550/whats-the-average-elo-rating-whats-the-average-uscf-rating) suggests 1750 ELO roughly compares with 2k KGS.

There are all sorts of holes with my methodology, but since I'm posting from a phone I think this is the best I can do at the moment.

Some ranking systems in go have a corresponding ELO attached. DGS does and I think the EGF rating does (although I am not in Europe and cannot confirm that definitely).

On DGS when I hover over my rank I would guess that shodan is about 2100 with 100 ELO points per rank. So 1750 ELO seems like it would be about 3.5 kyu

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Hi Alcadeias, (adding to jeromie's post) if we look at the level distribution bell curve for chess, where's the peak of the curve ? Around 2100 ELO ?
Maybe for Go ( curve ), it's around 1k or 1d ?

I think this is a good idea. But the curve you cite is only for KGS, which means that it does not really accounts for most of the really strong players in the world. Actually, in mainly accounts for western players, I think. But in general, I think it is an excellent approach.

I had in mind something simpler, and less exact, but easier to evaluate (you don't need much data) and possibly sufficient for this application.

Just look at bottom levels of both scales, look at top levels of both scales, and evaluate any level based on how far any given rank is from those ends on both scales.

For example:
Let us assume ELO goes from 500 to 3000 or so. 1700 can be said as roughly in the middle, maybe little less.
Go goes from 20k to 10d (10d being all the pros and other strong players.) roughly half-way through is what? 5k?
So, as a gross approximation, ELO 1700 corresponds to (KGS?) 6k.

Not sure this is exact enough, but might be sufficient to get an idea.

PS>
I know that both scales are not really linear. But bell curves might also be slightly misleading since they do not take into account that both games can have major stumbling blocks at different levels, which affects any curve. Ultimately it *is* like comparing apples to oranges, but it you need some kind of comparison, there is one or two.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

A simple question, but I'm afraid it's a complicated answer.

There are two main "lines of thought" here,

1: Skill based
2: Status-based

Skill based comparisons are extremely difficult to ascertain, due to the unlimited number of variables involved in the calculations.



Hmm, Elo is based on winning probabilities, not on raw skill. Traditional Go ranks are also not based on raw skill, but on a kind of logarithimic-natured skill rating, similar to richters and decibels (e.g. a sound has to become 10X more powerful to sound twice as loud to the human ear, ie ten people clapping sounds only twice as loud as one. Moving from 20k to 10k seems like becoming twice as strong, but is actually becoming anywhere from 3X to 10X as strong, we don't know).

Go ranks start from 30k. The 20k start adoption is seperate from what we are trying to deduct this with the elo/kyudan comparison. While it's possible to be weaker than 30k/500, Taking 500 (the weakest chess beginner) as the same as 20k (playing for a small while) doesn't work well. Therefore, the midpoint is 10k, which I believe falls considerably lower than 1700. Think of it on this fashion; the probability of a 15k defeating a 10 k is higher than the probability of a 10k defeating a 5k. The probability of a 1500 winning against a 1700, however, is equal to that of a 1700 against a 2000.

Status-based comparison is by no means easy to find, but not the nightmare of Skill comparison. Basically, we look at countries Where Go is popular, and then where chess is popular, and look at the expected strength of people in certain positions:

KGS/Tygem/etc Dan of Strongest player of average Local baduk club in Several leading Baduk countries V Elo of strongest of average local club in several leading Chess countries? (do the same regionally as well)

Elo/Dan of strongest juniors in the leading Chess/Baduk countries?

ETC...

Does anyone have this kind of information?

I think that EGF 7d and Elo 2400 is comparable in that 7.5d is around professional level in Japan (obviously nowhere near pro level in Korea or China)
and 2400 is what is generally considered pro level. Am I right?

ps: Sorry for flooding yet again, and excuse if there have been an unusual number spelling errors in my posts. Practically 95% is due to the fact that using half of a 3" screen to type means many typographicall errors. And a long time typing. (the whether/weather mix up is completely my fault though, heh.)

_________________
On Go proverbs:
"A fine Gotation is a diamond in the hand of a dan of wit and a pebble in the hand of a kyu" —Joseph Raux misquoted.

I've always considered 2500 (grandmaster in chess?) to be weak pro strength equivalent in Go, as (I think) there's about the same number of chess grandmasters as there are Go professionals (~1400 vs ~1300). Because the top pros can probably give the weakest pros several stones, this would put the top pros around ~2800, which is relatively similar to the top chess players. If we consider the weakest pros to be around 8d kgs and assume 100 ELO for each dan rank, then that would put 1d at 1800 ELO. Of course, because the difference between dan ranks is much higher than that of kyu ranks (in terms of ability needed to improve), we can put less ELO between each kyu rank. Let's say there's a 75 ELO between 4k-1k, putting 4k at around 1500. Then let's say 50 ELO between ranks after that, putting 10k at 1200, which I think is reasonable.

I'm just pulling numbers out of thin air, but I think it works overall haha.

Hello,

2000 +/-50 ELO for a 1d, 2800 ELO +/-50 for a 9d, 100 ELO per dan: simple and probably closed to the reality.

_________________
Simplify!

Well, then ELO starts with what? 0?
When I was starting, many years ago, I was told that Go ranks start at 20k. Anyways, it is a attribute of a particular system, which makes things more confusing.

In either case, I presented a method more than a real calculations. We can calculate Go ranks starting at 30k, sure, but then we can also take that the top of the scale is 15d or even 20d rather than the 10d I assumed (which is obviously wrong - there are people out there able to give KGS 9ds quite some hand stones.) These numbers would put my calculations back to where they were, give or take. But still, it is just a method to approximate, not some rigorous calculation.

I base it on the two pieces of info I can be pretty confident about, and nothing more, since nothing else can be stated with any confidence at all, I think.

The two pieces of info are:
1. Beginner levels in both games are equal, and
2. Top levels in both games are equal.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

When I started I was not given a rank at all. I played my first tournament about 10 months after I started and so I had to be assigned a rank to enter with. The stronger players I had been playing against put their heads together and decided on a number. I forget what it was: somewhere between 5k and 10k. I do remember them saying that DDK ranks (a term not used then) were pretty much pointless and people's playing strength had a large random element until at least 10k.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

I played for years before learning that 10 kyu was an actual rank. I thought that it was a catchall term for beginner.

The thing is, now that DDKs play other DDKs that they do not know, you do need ranks for them to set reasonable handicaps. OTOH, just playing even with no komi can be fun, too.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

About DDK players: the old-timers are mistaken in this case. The EGF and AGA offer plenty of evidence that ranks below 10k can offer meaningful information. We forget this on the go boards, but there are players who keep ddk ranks for years. Perhaps they improve by a stone or two each year.

For the original question, one thought would be to look at absolute distance from the best players. We don't have good ELO figures that include both amateurs and professionals, but the EGF does retain (extremely noisy) numbers for professionals who play in international events featuring European players.* A conservative estimate is that the best players are no less than 2900 ELO.

By that argument, you might map 1700 chess to 1700 or 1800 EGF, which is 2 kyu or 3 kyu.

* (Since players start with a rating based on their professional rank, you can't look at the EGF database and say "these people have x rating and have it mean anything. But what you can see is that when European players compete against Asian professionals, the European players are not generally gaining rating points, indicating that the Asians are overall not overrated by the EGF system...As I said, it's a crude estimate.)

_________________
Occupy Babel!

This almost answers the question, taken from here.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

I am not sure anybody said otherwise.
Personally, I think that of course such ranks offer meaningful information.
Part of this information is, for example: "my rank can fluctuate by 2-3 stones during the progress of a single game, and the closer I am to 20k the bigger this variance and the more its probability." I certainly find that meaningful.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

From my perspective, Go is a much harder game to learn especially at first. In other words, the basics of Chess are, well, basic. So far, I've found nothing "basic" about Go with the exception of the rules themselves. Now I haven't reached a note-worthy rank in Go, however, if you tell me that you're a 1750 Chess player, I'm about as impressed as someone telling me that they're 5 kyu. One thing to remember about both ranking systems is that the ranks become significantly harder to reach the higher you get.

_________________
Thinking like a go player during a game of chess is like bringing a knife to a gun-fight. Thinking like a chess player during a game of go feels like getting knifed while you're holding a gun...

Indeed.. if you watch the graphs of both FIDE ratings distribution and EGF rating distribution you notice that the peak of the normal distribution is around 2100 ELO or for go around 1D so I guess this is pretty accurate.

Looking at the rank histograms, I first see that the histograms are clearly skewed, not normal curves. I would use the cumulative distribution curves and make the comparison by matching percentiles. I think there used to be a graph on Sensei's like this: http://senseis.xmp.net/?RatingHistogramComparisons