I have lurked here for a long time, I find this newsletter very
interesting, because I play Go, I am not a programmer. I agree with
everything Mr Foltand had to say, but would like to add a small bit
about IGS ranks. A few years ago, IGS changed its ranking system so as
to anchor from the top, ie a 9d on IGS was a 9d pro, making it the
closest to "real world" rankings. I think the strength of IGS ranks has
slipped a bit since cyberoro came online, but is still probably closest
to "real world" ranks. I would suggest not using AGA or KGS or any other
ranking system for establishing your CGOS ranks, recruit some IGS
players with solid (over 100 rated games) ranks, and have them play with
your various engines.
back to lurking,
Michael
David Fotland wrote:
I think AGA and KGS are pretty close. AGA is a "real" rating system in that
ratings are earned in sanctioned tournaments so they are not disrupted by
casual games. http://www.usgo.org/ratings/default.html
European ratings (also from tournaments) are perhaps 2 stones tougher. Many
think they are more reasonable, since most feel the top of the amateur
rating should be 7 dan or lower, and top AGA ratings are higher than that.
Top pros that have participated in AGA tournaments have ratings about 10
dan, and there are many amateur 8 dans.
Japanese ratings are less tough. Japanese amateur ratings can be purchased,
with a test, so there has been inflation, and I don't think there is a
national rating organization like in USA and Europe.
Korean and Chinese are very tough, since they think a 1 dan amateur should
be close to professional strength.
So, I'm AGA 3 dan, but I would have a tough time playing as a 1 dan in
Europe, and I play at 4 dan in clubs in Japan.
I tried playing in a club as 3 dan in China once, and got totally crushed.
My preference would be a scale that is fixed at the top, with 9 dan pros at
9 dan. This would put 1 dan pros at about 7 dan and top amateurs at 6 dan,
with a few 7 dans. This is pretty close to the European scale. Top
tournament pros almost never lose to pro 1 dans, so there are 300 or more
ELO points between the top amateurs and the top professionals.
So perhaps top human play is 3500 or more on the cgos 19x19 scale. That's
12 ranks above 2000, with the higher ranks having more ELO points per rank.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:37 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Where and How to Test the Strong Programs?
I feel that we probably need several more players to have much
accuracy, but I don't mind starting the best educated guess we can
muster - it can be modified at a later time.
How do AGA ratings compare to other systems? Is any particular system
considered (defacto or otherwise) more of a "standard" than some other?
How do AGA ratings compare to KGS?
- Don
Christoph Birk wrote:
It looks like my (3k AGA) CGOS rating (tast-3k) is converging around
2000 ELO. That gives us a zero-point but we need at least one more
rated player (better more) to get the scale.
If you would like to use my GUI please contact me by private email
at ccbirk at gmail dot com.
Christoph
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
