A question please!

[freegame]

If you play mostly even games you will never get a "~"
If you play stronger people to profit from their knowledge,
it seems only fair to return the favor by playing at least about
the same amount of games against weaker player weaker players yourself.

I really hate it when I have a game offer open and a lot of weaker people with a "~" want a game.
Usually I will refuse all their challenges. I do accept stronger or even payers with a "~".

"~" people are the leeches of the KGS server.

[topazg]

Automatch is great for this.

So I've been told. I've also sat there for 20 minutes with auto-match running as a ? and given up waiting

Actually, what I've found really effective is "I'm about this strength and would really like some help getting a stable rank" in the info, but that's besides the point

[oren]

Automatch is great for this.

So I've been told. I've also sat there for 20 minutes with auto-match running as a ? and given up waiting

After five minutes, I start automatch on another server.

[Kirby]

Automatch is great for this.

So I've been told. I've also sat there for 20 minutes with auto-match running as a ? and given up waiting

Actually, what I've found really effective is "I'm about this strength and would really like some help getting a stable rank" in the info, but that's besides the point

I typically just accept games from weaker players and climb up. In my experience, lower ranked players are more liberal in playing ? players. If you screw up and lose to a weaker player you have to play more games to get it fixed, but for new accounts, this doesn't take too much time to do.

[xed_over]

"~" people are the leeches of the KGS server.

its really sad that people actually believe this

[xed_over]

If you screw up and lose to a weaker player you have to play more games to get it fixed,

To get what fixed?!?

Do you think losing an occasional game to a weaker player will significantly lower your rating? If you have a solid rating (lots of rated games), then it won't. And even if it did, when they later improve, yours will too (without having played them again -- that's the way the KGS system works).

When your go server rating drops, it doesn't change who you are. You are still the same person you were 30 mins earlier. Maybe even a little better, because likely you've learned something from your loss.

[Kirby]

If you screw up and lose to a weaker player you have to play more games to get it fixed,

To get what fixed?!?

Do you think losing an occasional game to a weaker player will significantly lower your rating? If you have a solid rating (lots of rated games), then it won't. And even if it did, when they later improve, yours will too (without having played them again -- that's the way the KGS system works).

When your go server rating drops, it doesn't change who you are. You are still the same person you were 30 mins earlier. Maybe even a little better, because likely you've learned something from your loss.

Yes, of course more games will help your rank to become more solid. That is not the point I was addressing.

The discussion is about how hard it is to get games as a [?] rated player. If you have a [?] rating, you have played either no games, or very few.

Therefore, a single game can affect your rank a lot.

So let's say that you have 5 other accounts on KGS that you play on regularly that are all 1d. Then you want to make a new account, which starts out with a [?] rank.

I'm suggesting that, sometimes 1d players care about rank too much to play against a [?] player. It can be easier to get a game with a lower ranked player. Say an 8k player accepts a challenge from you. After this, your rank might be something like [4k?] or [6k?]. A lot of 1d players still won't play evenly with you when you have this rank. So you play a 5k player. Now, you are maybe [2k?] or [3k?]. Next, you play a 2k player.

You know you can usually give a 2k player 2 stones with your other accounts, but let's say that you make a mistake in a reading problem, and end up losing against him.

The server might set you to [3k] or so. You can still play more rated games to get a [1d] account, just like the other 5 that you have, but it will take a few more games, because you lost to a 2k early on.

---

What I'm saying is that, one strategy to get a solid rank when you have a [?] rank is to play against people that are weaker, because they accept challenges more freely.

However, when you do this, if you lose to a player that is normally ranked weaker than you, it will take more games than usual to get back up to 1d where you are usually at.

The key point I was outlining is that, by using this method, it might take more games to get a 1d rank than if you just played a 1d to begin with.

It's not a problem or anything, and I know that it's how the system works. I was simply suggesting one method of dealing with a [?] rank when many higher ranked players are too concerned with rank to play anybody without one.

[Bantari]

Yes, the tilde is a stigma, in the precise sense of the term. As was pointed out, some people may not play her because of it.

Exactly.

This is why I suggested, some time ago when the 'tilde' idea was just a twinkle in WMS's eye and he tossed it to the community for approval, that instead of punishing those who do not play enough weaker players, one should reward those who do. In practice, this would mean that players who play more than 1/3 of games against weaker players would receive a 'star' as a reqard - and to signify them as particularly 'beginner friendly' players. I never liked the idea of giving the 'tilde' as a punishment.

Other than that, I think that everybody should play a healthy portion of their games against weaker players... the exact proportions I am not sure of, however... this is also why I rather reward than punish.

[Bantari]

If you screw up and lose to a weaker player you have to play more games to get it fixed

And again, we see rank obsession getting in the way of decent behavior...
I should collect all such sad examples for future reference.

[CarlJung]

Automatch is great for this.

So I've been told. I've also sat there for 20 minutes with auto-match running as a ? and given up waiting

Did you allow many handicap stones? For every added stone your chances increases. But perhaps you set 9 stones and still waited 20 mins, I wouldn't know what it's like up there in the higher echelons.

[Kirby]

If you screw up and lose to a weaker player you have to play more games to get it fixed

And again, we see rank obsession getting in the way of decent behavior...
I should collect all such sad examples for future reference.

My statement was merely to point out the volatility of one's rank when they start off as a [?] player.

One method to use when starting out as a [?] player is to start off by playing those that are close in rank to you.

A second is to start off by playing weaker players that are more likely to accept your challenges.

Between the two methods, if you lose a game in the process, the second method will require more games to get somebody's rank at the level that they're used to.

I would not call this rank obsession. It is just how things work when you are a [?] player. Feel free to read my response to xed_over to understand my reasoning.

[xed_over]

Say an 8k player accepts a challenge from you. After this, your rank might be something like [4k?] or [6k?].

Play with proper handicaps, and your provisional rating will be [1d?]

[Kirby]

Say an 8k player accepts a challenge from you. After this, your rank might be something like [4k?] or [6k?].

Play with proper handicaps, and your provisional rating will be [1d?]

That is another method, yes. But sometimes it is difficult to do when you are a [?] player.

[Bantari]

My statement was merely to point out the volatility of one's rank when they start off as a [?] player.

I understand.
And you have a point - when your account is young and not yet established, there are things you need to do to get where you want.

However - since most of us spend relatively very little time in that phase, but a lot of time with established accounts, such blanket statements are questionable without further explanations. And easily misunderstood.

Flaky occasional players like me notwithstanding... they are excluded from the above and get what they deserve.

[Kirby]

My statement was merely to point out the volatility of one's rank when they start off as a [?] player.

I understand.
And you have a point - when your account is young and not yet established, there are things you need to do to get where you want.

However - since most of us spend relatively very little time in that phase, but a lot of time with established accounts, such blanket statements are questionable without further explanations. And easily misunderstood.

Flaky occasional players like me notwithstanding... they are excluded from the above and get what they deserve.

I see. I should have elaborated more. I meant just to provide one method of getting rid of the [?] rank when nobody wants to play you.