MY OPINION ABOUT KLEIER RATING SYSTEM

[Agresor]

ABOUT KLEIER RATING SYSTEM:

MY ENGLISH IS NOT SO WELL,SO I HOPE YOU WILL UNDERSTAN WHAT I EXPLAIN.
ALSO IS THIS REPLAY ON GAIUS_MARIUS TOPIC.

I read in last mnth all about Kleier rating system,but still have only
approximately view about system moust based on experience and some
experiments that i made,but some interesting behavior still was
possible to determine.

1.Kleier system does to NOT be suitable from psichological view of player.
If somebody get points playing weak players and intend to be looking good
player ,he has only to avoid playing stong players.And consequence is that
players are not more interesting to play all peaple,what is drop of quality
and interest of players.
Who like to play and learn to be better , will find here many times too much
tactics who will play who.

2.kleier system has obviously week definition of what in Kleier page write
as "good player definition" and meen that player is good define if he has
enough games
20..or maybe more.This definition is WEEK,while on basis of quantity of
games is impossible to decide if player is good or not so good,while that all
games are not statisticaly satisfactory for that hypothesis from mathematicans
point of wiev. Consequence is that somebody who has played many games as
Gaius_Marius in UL,is unfair well defined and is always about some rating value
,unable to make some changes.
You can see that this meen drop down of motivation to play (Stratego) game.

3.I think al players come here to PLAY and MAKE FUN,OR SERIOUS be better and
RATING POINTS ARE REWARD for all what happens.
If reward is not CORESPOND ,the interest and motivation get down for such
GREAT GAME AS STRATEGO AND I THINK THIS IS NOT THE GOAL OF YOUR
GREAT STRATEGO(games)PROJECT!


So i meen that you must change Kleier rating system,maybe only some small
improvements in seanse what i explain.

Moust important is folowing:

Who win MUST BE REWARDED,but NOT while he often play,only while he won.That
is possible to implement on proper mathematican way.
Who lost shall be NOT PUNISH too much ,to be motivated
for next games.
Rating system must be dynamic,but also limited.

If you need help to make rating system better ,i am in your service.

sincerily Agresor

[spion]

Hi!

i will try to explain Kleier`s system another time:

It calculates player's strength, not any kind of points.

If a player can manage to win against a higher rated player, his rating will grow.
If a player loose against a higher rated player, his rating will nearly not change.

If a player loose against a weaker player, his rating will go down.
If a player wins against a weaker player, his rating will nearly not change.

A players rating will change the less the more games he played.

This is Kleier's system in easy words, it has much more features than this, e.g. it considers day forms and so on.

After having played many games, a player gets well defined, of course, and his rating will not change very much by playing single games, but why? Because his strength is now well known and a player's playing strength does not change from one game to another, right?

Ok, after having played 5 games, a player is not well defined. Maybe even after having played 20 games.

But we have already 12000 games in our database, so the system needs less games from a single player to define his playing strength exactly.

On the other hand, a player, who wants to know his strength as exactly as possible just has to play lot of games.

The system just shows you your playing strength, nothing else, and that's something that does not change within days.

Consider e.g. Tennis.

Boris Becker did not get number one from one day to another. He played, trained, played and so on.

His playing strength did not change from one day to another but within years, having played tons (perhaps 10000) games to train his skills.

Or consider chess: You will not be the worlds best chess player even if you play a billion times. Perhaps you wont even beat a club chess player.

Ok, it may be that this system is not very motivating....

On the other hand a system that awards players for playing often is unfair too, because some people simply do not have enough time to play 3 games a day. And we dont want to have the guy with the most time to be number one, do we?

And a system which awards players simply for WINNING often is bad too, because players would start to play only nobodys.

I will implement the WSC system just to have a second look at things. But i do prefer Kleiers system, because it simply shows the truth

Hermann Kleier is currently working on a documentation of his rating system, which will be a far better base for discussions than my explanations..

Best regards
spion

[Gaius_Marius]

Ok I see the good aspects of using the Kleir player rating strength system and I see the bad aspects. I'm not trying to sound too self serving in this matter but I think UL should use the points gained system since one is rewarded for playing and WINNING. Yes, a person should not be the top rank for just playing but he does deserve it when he WINS those games. You bring up the point of Boris Becker and tennis. Now u tell me, if a tennis player plays just one tournament a year. Does he deserve to be the top ranked? The answer is no! Why? Yes, he might play well but playing one tournament does not justify he being number one. The man that has played over and over again and won many times should be the best. I have played many games and won many times but I haven't been rewarded a rank higher than 4. I've played so many games in UL because it can be played quickly with an average of ten completed games in a 20 minute span. Now, because of this factor the Kleir system should not apply because many times a player will go 7-3 or 4-6 in UL over the span of ten games. Naturally in UL you will lose if u play many times, like myself. Now I believe the Kleir system only applies to classic where games are longer. UL should use a different ranking system, like the WSC system. I guess the only thing to do now is to limit my games played and to make sure that I win 85 percent of the games that I do play for the top rank. I will do exactly what Sun Tzu and Lion do, play a few games, win and then not play for ages. That seems to be the best way to keep the number one spot. One thing is for sure and I'm the best example of it. You will never become the rank one if you play everybody hard and easy because simply u cannot keep an 80 percent win percentage doing this. Best way would be to start 0-0 fresh rank and play some newbie fifty times, stay 50-0 and not play. You will then retain the rank one for ages. Sad but true . No offense to anyone

-

[spion]

Hi!

a player who does not play for ages will not get a rank any longer. E.g. Lion is not number 1 in the classic ranking any longer because he did not play at least 3 games in 2 month. This rule is old, but i did not implement it yet because of lack of time.

I updated the UL rating table to the new type like the classic table: Ranked only and all players.

I also implemented the WSC rating system to have a second view.

You can watch it (at the moment) at:

http://www.gravon.de/english/stratego/rating.ul.php?select=wsc
KRank means the rank from Kleier's system in order to compare them.

Perhaps i will keep both views, Kleier's and WSC's but i don't know it yet.

Best regards
spion

[Agresor]

ANSWER TO YOUR ANSWER SPION:
1. If a better player loses against a weaker player there should be no
doubt to CHANGE his rating points.
2. Strength should be be changed because players are developing too.
3.Players who do not play are worse than those who play regularly.
4.With such a depressive system as Kleier you can expect less and less quality games.
5. A definition of a "well defined" player is logically and mathematically insuficient.
6.The goal is to have active players and not a virtual rating.
7. Players do not play for money as B. Becker but they have fun and some of them want to be
regularly active and rewarded with a changeable rating.
This is the least you could do for your players in order to develop their game.


Agresor

[Guest]

[go away]

Get lost with Lion, hes nothing.