Life In 19x19

Abyssinica wrote:Can I be a pi dan?

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.

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

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.

jug wrote:

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.

Well, the "ratings" are ... so in practice it works as you like ... If you don't have interesting games, the reasons are probably lying elsewhere

At least for amateur games ... most go-server and official rating-systems (like EGF for example) do not use a "rank" (e.g. 2k) to determine "fair" game-settings, but a "rating" which is a fractional number (e.g. 2k == 1870 Elo rating, or -230 AGA rating). After a game the expecting winning probabilities change the rating of the players. "Ranks" are mostly used for reference (shorter and easier to remember) than a rating.

SmoothOper wrote:

jug wrote:

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.

Well, the "ratings" are ... so in practice it works as you like ... If you don't have interesting games, the reasons are probably lying elsewhere

At least for amateur games ... most go-server and official rating-systems (like EGF for example) do not use a "rank" (e.g. 2k) to determine "fair" game-settings, but a "rating" which is a fractional number (e.g. 2k == 1870 Elo rating, or -230 AGA rating). After a game the expecting winning probabilities change the rating of the players. "Ranks" are mostly used for reference (shorter and easier to remember) than a rating.

If you don't like playing the game the way I like playing the game then their must be something wrong with you jug. Maybe you are interested in playing large handicaps or something who knows. But what can you expect from someone that can't even remember their rank? Not much.

SmoothOper wrote:[..]

If you don't like playing the game the way I like playing the game then their must be something wrong with you [..]

hyperpape wrote:What servers are you thinking of, jug? I think KGS uses nominal ranks for handicaps.

And I think the original complaint makes a lot of sense. Why should the system pair two players with a handicap that it *knows* is larger than is necessary? Surely a too small handicap usually makes slightly more sense than a too large one.

The advantage is that the system is simple to understand, and I guess I'm ok with that. But 2k vs 1k = even, 2k vs 1 dan = 1 stone is also easy to understand.

jug wrote:
If you don't like playing the game the way I like playing the game then their must be something wrong with you jug. Maybe you are interested in playing large handicaps or something who knows. But what can you expect from someone that can't even remember their rank? Not much.

jug wrote:
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. It is not about what I like or dislike to play.

All I'm saying is, that servers usually use a fractional rating already to determine how big a handicap/komi is, though there might be differences how the different servers calculate it.
But there are servers (e.g. the turn-based DGS), that get you an even game with the difference you gave (0.6k), especially on smaller board sizes, though I assume you mean for 19x19.

If the preferred server you are playing on does not, then either try to use a manual game-setting, or find a server to your liking that does create game-settings to your liking.

SmoothOper wrote: You think this is interesting? There must be something wrong with you. Maybe you shouldn't go around saying there is something wrong with people when they have a valid argument. People might think you are one of those ELO-sers.

Abyssinica wrote:Can I be a pi dan?

DrStraw wrote:

SmoothOper wrote: You think this is interesting? There must be something wrong with you. Maybe you shouldn't go around saying there is something wrong with people when they have a valid argument. People might think you are one of those ELO-sers.

I don't know about jug, but there is definitely something wrong with you if you go around insulting people with an attitude like that. Jug's statements are perfectly coherent, which is more than can be said for yours.