Another possible interpretation of this chart is that grade levels
are much less well defined at the lower levels, and many players are
playing at levels +- one or two stones from where they might be. Note
that G+1 and G+2 and in some cases G+3 percentages are only slightly
different for some parts of the chart. There are so many different
ways to mess up in a game of Go that assigning people to specific
ranks is very difficult. The variance in play from one day to the
next can be very wide. In the lower ranks, does it really make sense
to specify grade exactly? It looks like things straighten out with
respect to multiple stone differences in grade somewhere near 5k,
which is also about the level when many players begin to play with
greater consistency.
Cheers,
David
On 20, Jan 2007, at 7:31 PM, Ray Tayek wrote:
At 05:30 PM 1/20/2007, you wrote:
> what is the win expectancy of 5 dan over 4 dan without handicap?
>
http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/statev.html
4D 30.6% (out of 4000 games)
this seem to non linear. and indicates that the value of one
handicap stone is worth more the stronger you are. which would
imply that the differences between the ranks are greater the higher
you go (seems like it to me).
thanks
---
vice-chair http://ocjug.org/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
