DrStraw wrote:
Hhm! For one thing, 1.5 and 2.1 are decimal, not rational.
To be fair (and pedantic
), they are rational numbers (numbers that can be expressed as ratios), 3/2 and 21/10. But maybe fractional would be a clearer term to use.
| Life In 19x19 http://www.lifein19x19.com/ |
|
| Rational Ranks http://www.lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10300 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | SmoothOper [ Thu May 15, 2014 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rational Ranks |
So why aren't ranks rational. I mean it would make for so many better games if a player was 1.5 kyu and another 2.1 to play essentially even. |
|
| Author: | DrStraw [ Thu May 15, 2014 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
SmoothOper wrote: So why aren't ranks rational. I mean it would make for so many better games if a player was 1.5 kyu and another 2.1 to play essentially even. Hhm! For one thing, 1.5 and 2.1 are decimal, not rational. And secondly, the difference is 0.6 which rounds to 1 and so they should play on a one stone handicap. |
|
| Author: | Shawn Ligocki [ Thu May 15, 2014 2:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
I think this is how AGA ranks work, they are fractional numbers and you round to see what handicap to use. I've heard some go servers will also use custom komi/reverse-komi to make up for fractional difference in rank. |
|
| Author: | Shawn Ligocki [ Thu May 15, 2014 2:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
See for example, the handicap section of the AGA On-Line Self-Paired Tournament Rules. |
|
| Author: | Shawn Ligocki [ Thu May 15, 2014 3:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
DrStraw wrote: Hhm! For one thing, 1.5 and 2.1 are decimal, not rational. To be fair (and pedantic ), they are rational numbers (numbers that can be expressed as ratios), 3/2 and 21/10. But maybe fractional would be a clearer term to use.
|
|
| Author: | RBerenguel [ Thu May 15, 2014 3:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
Shawn Ligocki wrote: DrStraw wrote: Hhm! For one thing, 1.5 and 2.1 are decimal, not rational. To be fair (and pedantic ), they are rational numbers (numbers that can be expressed as ratios), 3/2 and 21/10. But maybe fractional would be a clearer term to use.Pedantic++ They are decimal representations of rational numbers. |
|
| Author: | illluck [ Thu May 15, 2014 3:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
RBerenguel wrote: Shawn Ligocki wrote: DrStraw wrote: Hhm! For one thing, 1.5 and 2.1 are decimal, not rational. To be fair (and pedantic ), they are rational numbers (numbers that can be expressed as ratios), 3/2 and 21/10. But maybe fractional would be a clearer term to use.Pedantic++ They are decimal representations of rational numbers. Agreed, they are both rational and decimal. |
|
| Author: | Mef [ Thu May 15, 2014 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
The answer is typically "tradition" however some places do use the rating difference in lieu of ranking difference. As mentioned, AGA self paired tournaments do this, and I believe IGS does as well (or at least they used to). |
|
| Author: | SmoothOper [ Thu May 15, 2014 3:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
RBerenguel wrote: Shawn Ligocki wrote: DrStraw wrote: Hhm! For one thing, 1.5 and 2.1 are decimal, not rational. To be fair (and pedantic ), they are rational numbers (numbers that can be expressed as ratios), 3/2 and 21/10. But maybe fractional would be a clearer term to use.Pedantic++ They are decimal representations of rational numbers. Yes, yes, rational numbers are like PhDs degrees, on paper only. |
|
| Author: | hyperpape [ Thu May 15, 2014 3:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
DrStraw wrote: For one thing, 1.5 and 2.1 are decimal, not rational. This is why daddy drinks.But to go to the highest possible point of pedantry, with vain hopes that it will end this, 2.1 is a number (of what sort, we probably can't say, though it's not an integer). '2.1' is a linguistic entity that represents a number (you might call it a decimal representation, though you might also reserve that for a particular type of abstract object). As to the original question, I hold the apparently unpopular opinion, (influenced by playing a lot of other abstracts and the OGS ladders) that reduced handicaps are good. So I'm (good god, what is happening?) in partial agreement with you, SmoothOper. |
|
| Author: | Abyssinica [ Thu May 15, 2014 3:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
My next ranking goal is going to be 5i! 
|
|
| Author: | DrStraw [ Thu May 15, 2014 4:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
Abyssinica wrote: My next ranking goal is going to be 5i! Why think small? Why not try the quaternions? |
|
| Author: | ez4u [ Thu May 15, 2014 7:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
DrStraw wrote: Abyssinica wrote: My next ranking goal is going to be 5i! Why think small? Why not try the quaternions? Abyssinica is just admitting what we all know in our hearts, for us amateurs our ranks are all imaginary anyway. 
|
|
| Author: | RBerenguel [ Thu May 15, 2014 11:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
hyperpape wrote: DrStraw wrote: For one thing, 1.5 and 2.1 are decimal, not rational. This is why daddy drinks.But to go to the highest possible point of pedantry, with vain hopes that it will end this, 2.1 is a number (of what sort, we probably can't say, though it's not an integer). '2.1' is a linguistic entity that represents a number (you might call it a decimal representation, though you might also reserve that for a particular type of abstract object). As to the original question, I hold the apparently unpopular opinion, (influenced by playing a lot of other abstracts and the OGS ladders) that reduced handicaps are good. So I'm (good god, what is happening?) in partial agreement with you, SmoothOper. I felt the universe shaking |
|
| Author: | Solomon [ Fri May 16, 2014 11:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
I thought my rank (5.98343) was rational (598343/100000), but actually it's irrational (11 * sqrt(6 * log(pi)/pi)/e). |
|
| Author: | Abyssinica [ Fri May 16, 2014 12:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
Can I be a pi dan? |
|
| Author: | DrStraw [ Fri May 16, 2014 12:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
Abyssinica wrote: Can I be a pi dan? No, but if your rank is purely gained online you can be an e-dan. |
|
| Author: | RBerenguel [ Fri May 16, 2014 1:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
DrStraw wrote: Abyssinica wrote: Can I be a pi dan? No, but if your rank is purely gained online you can be an e-dan. If you use a concrete brand of mobile devices and use them to play go, an iDan |
|
| Author: | Abyssinica [ Fri May 16, 2014 8:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
RBerenguel wrote: DrStraw wrote: Abyssinica wrote: Can I be a pi dan? No, but if your rank is purely gained online you can be an e-dan. If you use a concrete brand of mobile devices and use them to play go, an iDan Or, if you're on a budget, you can always get the iKyuu. |
|
| Author: | emeraldemon [ Sat May 17, 2014 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rational Ranks |
Dgs has the option to adjust komi to account for rank differences. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|