in a ranking table you are able to - no option not to

I am a little confused... at the end of the day if both the higher and lower ranked players are happy to engage in a game what is the issue?

Everyone has the option to say Yes or No to starting a game... and that is an individuals choice.

Why on earth would anyone want this total and utter freedom changed?! This just seems utterly mental!

Only to obtain a ranking table which is just that - a table that, at any given moment in time, shows a list of players in order of their form and ability relative to everyone else having competed to exactly the same conditions as everyone else and not having carefully selected who they play.

Unless you do that the tables are what they are now - high score tables - and, by the way, there is certainly nothing wrong with that at all if that's what is wanted.

And they certainly keep the forum entertaining with regular lively threads and posts.

I do agree with chris that it is more of a high score table than ranking (admitted quite unconventional one)

Ranking you get to number one by beating the top ranked players
beating the lower ranked players usually isn't rated as much

(for example some ranking tables only allow you to play the person directly above or below them e.g. 3rd can only play 2nd and 4th - although this isn't really implementable

I can see this slowly moving back to a mention of the idea of a seperate, but identical, rank system for tournament games, which would level out over time to show a more genuine rank as opponents would be random.

I have always liked the idea, and renaming the current rank as "points" or similar would help make things a little less confusing also.

I hate to say this, but those who somehow think the ability to choose your opponents somehow means the ranking system is not a true reflection of skill and is somehow contradictory to the ranking system being a handicap, simple lack a basic understanding of statistical mathematics.

Since the ranking system is self-balancing based on the factor Nick has chosen (100 point diff = 75% win rate to break even over time), it basically matters not the slightest whether someone plays opponents of higher, lower, or similar rank.

The ability to pick and choose opponents would affect the ranking system in the way you are thinking Dave if, and only if, you somehow had a magical sixth sense telling you whether or not any given opponent has a good or bad day, or whether they for whatever reason are going to play better or worse than their current ranking would suggest. If we had that information (which is not at all possible, technically or otherwise), picking opponents would matter.

Noone I think, and me certainly, says the points scoring system doesnt achieve what it sets out to try to do.

What it doesn't and cannot achieve however (and I do understand statistical mathematics) is a 'ranking' table in it's true sense - not that I am really convinced that there is any system that could be brought in to truly produce that unfortunately, within the vagaries of this site - hence why I accept what we have for what it is.

Define "a ranking table in its true sense" and please elaborate why you believe it cannot be achieved by a weighted system like the one we currently have here on funky.

My definition - a table that ranks players in order based on their achievements, their form and their ability at any given moment in time - from all players that are competing to exactly the same factors against any and all opposition. Example is golf or tennis - or indeed any you care to name.

By choosing your opponents you can choose the type of opponent that you know you can beat - even 100% of the time in some game types. That cannot happen in any real life sports 'table' that comes to mind.

Proof of that - the number of times you see players in the top 10 ranking tables on here who regularly play tournaments and come nowhere near winning most (and even all) of those they enter when they ought really to if their ranked position (thats ranked position NOT ranked score) was genuine.

And finally the fact that research and experience shows internet games that have used this system - for example chess - have done away with the freedom to choose your opponents because it does not work says a great deal.

Those are some of the reasons why a weighted system like the one on here will not alone achieve a 'ranking' table.

Interesting last post Chris - as a winner of over 100 tournies and 8 since reset out of around 15 entered I believe you are a little inaccurate on your comments. That said a tournament is just that - a knock out - and so many adept and even intermediate can win thru just like in real life.

Would be good to have a tourny ranking system as well tho

Why would it be you? there have been a vast number of players falling into that category I mention during the last four years that I have played on here.

Yeah can understand where your coming from chris, but I do think the current system isn't bad, if you play low ranked players then you imo run the risk of losing big points if you lose, plus the rank table awards more to active players because of the daily deduction, the only way I can think of that would be a more true life ranking system is you have 50 players who all play each other once and have a frame win % which couldn't work on here for obvious reasons, even tournament results wouldn't be 100% reflective due to different times of the day people play so some times there is lower ranked players in than others, not sure of a system that could be implemented that would be more accurate or fair than what is already in place.

why isnt jan a mod or something it takes me a year to read there posts and they all make sence

vote jan :D

vote alchoghol :D

You choose your opponents in the golf "ranking" system too, and in many ways you do so in tennis too - which even gives you the advantage of seeding.

That's where you and so many others go wrong. Entirely.

There is no such opponent to choose.... There exists no one that you can pick to play that will consistently lose to you more often than your ranking difference needs them to in order for you to gain rank. In a short perspective - sure - but the opposite is also true: You stumble into players playing far better than their rank (in fact a lot more common due to the bottom part of the table being less representative)




I can't speak for others, but in my own experience I don't have time to both play ranked games and tournies. As for the few tournies I *do* enter I have a very representative win rate thank you very much - and I strongly suspect you would find the same to be the case for most other high ranked players to be honest.... Which none of us really knows since tournament win rate is not yet recorded.

As for that researched "fact" of yours - news to me. Do you have any references to any such research?

Edited at 06:54 Fri 01/10/10 (BST)

haha i was thinking the very same thing,
we all heard of jesus but janb might just be gods other son.

Yes you can pick and choose the tournaments you play on a tour but you will still never get anywhere near the top without playing directly against the very best players. Something you can do on here.



This is where you get bogged down in statistics rather than reality every time I'm afraid. Example: I play one player and I know that in 8 ball or Straight for example that I can win every time we play simply because I can use tactics and play snookers. That gives me a reasonable yield each time I play. I refuse to play others and meanwhile my 'favourite' opponent can go off and recover points lost to me by playing other players so that when it comes to me playing against them again I can simply harvest another lovely chunk of points. There is no cheating involved in the games. That will easily get you into any top 10 on here in very short time. Would that make me a 'Top 10' player at that moment of time in comparison to every other player on that list? The answer is statistically YES but in reality who would know. That is the point. It would be highly debatable at best - hence all the threads you get on here. This scenario cannot happen in any other sport unless someone knows better. And that is only one example - there are many others.

Which is exactly what I would expect to see but you would be surprised if you picked a few players and analysed it carefully.



The Internet Chess Club for one, which I believe was the first and largest of its kind - I did say this in previous discussions and I am sure it would come up on a search of this forum.

Finally I say again that I have nothing against the weighted system being used on this site. It provides competition and targets for those that wish to use it. And even more importantly I am not saying that everyone that has ever made a top 10 table was not a top 10 player at that moment in time. Ideally though we would have a system which would do away with the need for all these type of threads and posts.

This ignores one fundamental snag making what you describe not really possible over time at all:

You have a certain skill level - so does the opponent in question. This far at least we should be able to agree 100%

If you beat that opponent 100% of the time, either you are cheating, or that opponent would have a very very low skill level and yours would be very very high. Note that I am still talking about skill, not rank. The correct rank for the two players involved in this scenario would be 500 or lower and 990+ respectively. Which in fact you would also achieve if playing each other long enough.

Now, where this goes really down the drain is in the assumption that this player will somehow consistantly lose to YOU, but somehow not lose as much to other opponents. Where does this assumption come from? A player losing badly to you but not others is cheating - no more, no less.

love being drunk, hate being sober!