This seems like an one-way-road to me. Of course you can play significantly weaker than your current rank but can you play significantly stronger in ideal situations, based on your average rank?
I don't think so. If I would beat a Dan-player, I surely don't take this as my supreme skill but accept that he had a bad day - maybe playing a 5th game of Go at 3am in the uni library when he should be doing homework that's due in 5 hours while listening to obnoxious techno music and running off energy drink fuel to keep him up and alert.

On the other hand, maybe I'm too modest.

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

If your rank is an average and it's been partly calculated from games where you played weaker than that rank, then it follows that you must have played stronger in some other games.


No ... no ... not seeing it :p.

_________________
19/02/2011: this grumpy person takes a voluntary holiday from L19.

My rating is based on my results, and therefore it is accurate.

Currently my KGS rank is relatively accurate since I don't improve atm.
But during my first year of playing I was almost always underrated by about one stone(my winrate being >>50% at that time backs this up), since the KGS ranksystem can't cope well with quickly changing strength.
My EGF rank is useless since it's mainly determined by what I rank I tell them on registration.

_________________
Sanity is for the weak.

Sure, but I can't imagine playing 4 stones stronger than my average rating. At least not when I did not lose intentionally to get a weaker rating beforehand =D

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

This is interesting, as it gives me at least part of the answer to a question why i am so bad at casual games (especially under-handicapped with weaker oponents) and so good (in comparison) at tournament games. when i compare my individual skills with my oponents, i usually come out worse than them - worse tsumego, not knowing joseki, not understanding why i play what i play, etc. but when i play them at the tournament, i can beat them (sometimes )

_________________
Spilling gasoline feels good.

I might be wrong, but probably not.

I voted for a stone high simply because within the last month my rating has jumped 2 to 3 ranks according to Kgs and I don't think it is settled, aside from that I do think it is somewhat accurate maybe a stone off at times.
I have to agree also with Araban depending on my mood or the current circumstances I could play within a 3 stone difference roughly in either direction of my current known rating, which being 7k would say I can play as good as a 4k or as bad as a 10k. Though I try to avoid playing games when I am not feeling up to it because then it feels as the games are complicated beyond comprehension even when it is as simple as can be.

_________________
Only a child can ask questions that the wise can not answer.

Without having read the thread, I turned the question into "how many games out of 100 would I win against an equally-ranked player," only to see Bill's proposed alternate formulation . I said my rank is too low because of rating lag--I've won more than 60% of my games after going from 8 to 7 kyu. But this is similar to the referenced chess study's exclusion of game submission delays, so perhaps my response shouldn't count.

I voted accurate due to not currently having a rank anywhere. I turned my rank off on KGS so I wouldn't worry about it when I play and I don't have an account anywhere else and am not a member of any Go Association.

However when I asked I usually say I'm around 5 or 6k but one of my friends at the Go club I go to who is 2 dan says that I am probably 1 or 2 stones stronger than that currently.

There is a self test in case you are not sure about your rating accuracy.

Ask yourself whether you stopped playing rated games or play only if you feel you can show your full strength or avoid players you do not know or rather wash the dishes instead of playing... if this is the case your rating is obviously too high.

Personally my KGS rating is sometimes too high especially when I return to KGS after an absence, my EGF rating is too low due to having played only a handful of tournaments and my OGS rating is probably about correct and my WBaduk rating is just my WBaduk rating. (I look at the last one when depressed and instantly feel better. And it is always my aim to harmonize my ratings, taking the WBaduk rating as the measure.)

So here's the interesting thing, suppose you have a population of players and suppose that they're all getting stronger gradually, at roughly the same rate. Then, playing against each other, their rating change will be a result of their growth rate, (if they are getting stronger faster than their opponents in the sample, then they'll go up a rank, otherwise the rank won't change, even if they are stronger than they were)

In this case, the rank doesn't measure strength, since if you had a population of entirely 4k's, the ones whose level did not change would actually probably drop a rank.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

During post mortems or other game reviews with other Dutch 1 dans, I tend to have the feeling that they are stronger than me. Whether that is caused by self-underestimation or genuine weakness I do not know, though frankly, I suspect the latter. Still, fact is that I win about 50% of my tournament games against the very same Dutch 1-dans. Interesting, isn't it?

_________________
My name is Gijs, from Utrecht, NL.

When in doubt, play the most aggressive move

Wow, is being overrated the only cause for this kind of behaviour? In that case I have been overrated on kgs for years, there must be something wrong with the rating system.

Ones rating is defined based on the game results, how can it possibly be inaccurate if he plays frequently enough?

How many games must a player win, before he can call himself underrated?
The answer my friend is blowing in the rating system.

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

Well, my win rate according to the kgs stats site is 60%ish, so logically I must have been consistently under-ranked for most of my go-playing time. (If you are improving you must naturally be under-ranked in any system based on past results.) Since I started out in kgs at 18k that might not be surprising. I put accurate though, as I just hit 1d (woohoo!) on KGS and there is no way I am 2d. I really couldn't judge to within half a stone!

I put down "half a stone overranked" assuming that the AGA will probably make me 2d after my last tournament if the ratings ever get updated. Yeah, I won all my games but it was luck, luck, luck...

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com

Araban, I guess I really just don't play Go when I am too tired and feel like falling asleep. So that could be why my strength fluctuates less. I also don't know if I have ever played five online games of Go in one day (in real life is a differenty story...) so I guess I don't get fatigued to the same extent as you.

I recently noticed that my win percentage on KGS is 65%. Given that I have used this account ever since I started playing online Go, I would say it's not much of a stretch to say I have been underranked for a significant amount of my time playing Go.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

<TwilightZone>
Guys, are you talking about different ranking systems or what? Apparently not. But then I don't get this discussion.

Your rank is nothing more than the numerical definition of your strength based on facts (i.e. your game results taking into account your opponents relative strengths). I don't understand how it can be wrong, it is just a definition.

It is like saying I am more rich than indicated by the money and property I own. How is it possible, how do you then define richness?
Likewise, if you think you are stronger than your rank, then how do you define strength?
</TwilightZone>

But on the other hand, note that win percentage and rank/rating are different things because win percentage does not take into account your opponents strengths and/or handicap stones.

And of course, if what you mean is "I play once in a month on KGS and I am improving fast" or "I haven't played in two years" then your rating is not uptodate. Meaning that there is not enough data to define your current strength. But that's a different story. I suppose people posting in this thread play regularly enough. If not, I then will say "hmm now I see what you mean".

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

It seems pretty simple to me entropi - your rank is based on your past strength (things you have already done). All you have to do to be stronger than your rank is improve after a game, or for ranking to lag behind increases in strength (KGS when you play many games is well known for this). Given that doing tasks and then sleeping has been shown to make you better at doing those tasks improvment without playing is quite possible too. Or maybe you will have a mini-epiphany about direction of play. Or learn some new joseki. Or do tsumego. Or whatever.

It's like saying "I am richer than my last bank statement shows" - you may well be if you earned some money, got interest or received a gift.

Yes, of course I understand that. But then how can you measure this increase? How can you for example say "I got 1/2 stone stronger since my last game" if you have no means to measure it. I mean it is not defined, "strength" is an abstract concept.

For example your KGS rating still changes even if you don't play (which is a particularity of kgs rating system). This of course does not mean that your "strength" (in terms of knowledge) also changes. But since you cannot measure your strength without playing (i.e. you cannot give it a name, a number, etc) you simply have to accept that your rating is the best approximation to (or let's say the most precise definition available of) your current strength.

Otherwise, since of course you normally (if not always) get stronger after each game, your current strength will never be defined.

(Edit: Again, while arguing all these, I assume a reasonably frequent playing under the same rating system. Otherwise your rating is obviously not an approximation or definition of your current strength.)

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.