Rating systems (again?)

[nige1]

A search of BBO fora for rating systems revealed no relevant topic devoted to that subject -- although this must surely have been exhaustively discussed here before :huh:

Some time ago, the topic of objective rating systems did come up in rec.games.bridge: most commentators criticized the idea; and Fred persuasively explained why he was against implementing such a system :(

Are there any rating systems currently in place on BBO -- other than those run by private clubs? If not, what are current views on this issue? :huh:

For example, what about an optional rating system? Has that been discussed? :D

Nobody need display their rating. In fact, if the idea were widely disliked then only a few of us would display their ratings. Also if any player started behaving badly in an attempt to be highly rated, then BBO could use an over-ride to reduce or hide his rating. This might become a useful management sanction, less final and draconian than expulsion from BBO ;)

Rating could be confined to a few open events. For instance, money bridge games, certain open tournaments, and tournaments restricted only by rating. This would preserve the normal friendly mix enjoyed by all in the main bridge club and other events. :)

Currently, rgb is discussing why there are no child prodigies in bridge. Among many possible reasons is the difficulty of quickly recognizing promising young talent. There may well be a wealth of potential world-class players among the thousands of youngsters who play on BBO. A rating system could accelerate their early recognition and development. B)

[hotShot]

I think everything was said in one of these threads ....

 

Look here

 

or here

 

Here is another one

 

yet another thread

 

And don't forgetthis one

[Guest Jlall]

To be fair the search function of this board is not very good, but yeah this has been discussed a million times.

[jdonn]

Currently,  rgb is discussing why there are no child prodigies in bridge.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Sir, I'd like to introduce you to the incomparable JLALL

[nige1]

Currently,  rgb is discussing why there are no child prodigies in bridge.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Sir, I'd like to introduce you to the incomparable JLALL

I looked up Justin on Google, and the pleasure is mine :blink:

 

According to his profile, Justin Lall is 20 years old. In Bridge terms, he is a child prodigy, a fantastic young talent , already twice junior world champion!

 

I notiice, however, that, at least until recently, you still qualifiy as a junior in Bridge, even at 25. That seems to confirm the notion that bridge players tend to mature later (for a variety of obvious reasons).

 

Although many bridge-players are competent as young children, few seem seem gain recognition as precocious talent. At chess and Go, child prodigies are and nurtured to reach top international level in their pre-teens -- about 11 years old.

 

That was the comparison being made on rgb

 

Again it seems to me that the main reasons are obvious. One of the more subtle reasons, however, is the difficulty of recognising and developing young Bridge talent.

 

IMO, all this may change in the future, especially due to on-line play sites like BBO.

 

Thus, Enquiry implies that objective performance measures are available on request. Were I a young Bridge prodigy, <sigh> I would want regular easy access and permission to publicise my status.

 

IMO, Justin Lall's views on this topic would be interesting.

[inquiry]

While you are at it, Nigel, you may ask jdonn for his views as well...

 

You can look him up too... his name is Joshua (Josh) Donn on his views, you will find him as second from the right (I hope) in the following photograph/article 11th hunio world championship -- final daily bulletin. In addition to being a junior world champ (ok, only once so far), rumor has it he was in the top five at the world junior pair championship last year.

[Guest Jlall]

I don't think josh means right now, I think he was talking about me having a top 10 in an open national when I had just turned 13 and another top 20 in an open national at the same one.

[firechief]

I was youngest life master at the key age of 11, and already in print being called a child prodigy. So, regardless of whether or not I was one, it's an overstatement to say there are clearly *no* child prodigies in bridge.

 

Joel Wooldridge

[Guest Jlall]

I was youngest life master at the key age of 11, and already in print being called a child prodigy. So, regardless of whether or not I was one, it's an overstatement to say there are clearly *no* child prodigies in bridge.

 

Joel Wooldridge

yeah don't forget your record got smashed :P

[jdonn]

I consider Joel more of a foosball prodigy.

[Al_U_Card]

You see, Nigel? This is why there are *no* child prodigies in bridge.....they actually want to act like children and have fun......imagine the audacity! :P

[foo]

I think Joel, Josh, and Justin would all tell you that they there have been many fine players that are considerably younger than US legal drinking age

 

(Evidently, particularly if their names begin with "J" :P )

[nige1]

I think Joel, Josh, and Justin would all tell you that they there have been many fine players that are considerably younger than US legal drinking age

 

(Evidently, particularly if their names begin with "J" :( )

foo may have a point: The UK has two gifted young Js: Justin and Jason Hackett.

 

I posted this in the Software forum but it also seems relevant to this discussion:

 

Fred definitely not to want an official rating system on his site; and that would seem to be the end of the matter....

 

.....But.....

 

inquiry tells us that BBO maintains a sophisticated rating system unofficially. And inquiry will consider divulging your own rating on request.

 

Hence there seem to be two avenues open that would satisfy most people and embarrass nobody...

• 1. Enable the option to insert rating field(s) into your profile that are visible only to you. I reckon this would be of interest and use to most BBO members who appreciates objective feed-back on their current form.
   
  
• 2. If you enjoy competition then join a private club within BBO, which implements a rating system confined to its members-only tournaments. Does anybody know of such a club with free membership?
  

[kenrexford]

Currently,  rgb is discussing why there are no child prodigies in bridge.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Sir, I'd like to introduce you to the incomparable JLALL

Doogie Lall?

[kenrexford]

I think Joel, Josh, and Justin would all tell you that they there have been many fine players that are considerably younger than US legal drinking age

 

(Evidently, particularly if their names begin with "J" :( )

Yeah, but that's a tad unfair -- different playing field.

 

See, most of us can drink heavily if we screw up a round of bridge. If you cannot drink, you are forced to think a lot more and make the right play. When they can drink, and of course they do not yet, then they will be enabled to make the same stupid plays and bids that the rest of us make.

[Rain]

inquiry tells us that BBO maintains a sophisticated rating system unofficially. And inquiry will consider divulging your own rating on request.

 

 

BBO does not maintain the secret rating system. This comes from bridgebrowser, a software that you can purchase.

[fred]

Fred definitely not to want an official rating system on his site; and that would seem to be the end of the matter....

This is not true.

 

First of all, even if my position was "there will never be an official rating system on BBO", that would not be the end of the matter. Although technically speaking I might have the final say on this, I do have 2 business partners. If both of them felt strongly that we should have an official rating system, I would defer to their judgment.

 

I don't think this scenario is likely because both of my business partners see pretty much eye-to-eye with me as far as this issue is concerned.

 

But "there will never be an official rating system on BBO" is not my position. My position is that I do not want to make any changes in this area unless I am confident that such changes will represent a major overall improvement to what we are doing now.

 

So far my partners and I have been unable to come up with a plan that qualifies. It is not like we are constantly debating this issue, but it is something we discuss from time to time. We also receive a lot of suggestions (both on forums and via e-mail) about how we might improve things. While such suggestions are appreciated, so far nobody has been able to propose a "solution" that comes anywhere close to filling me with confidence.

 

I personally think it is unlikely that anyone will come up with an answer I like any time soon (if ever). Even if such an answer was provided tomorrow, it would likely take a while before we were able to implement it - we have a lot on our plates already.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[nige1]

I didn't mean to misrepresent Fred's position and I'm sorry that I did.

 

I realise that it would require work, but I would appreciate Fred's view on the idea of enabling an option to insert rating field(s) into your profile that are visible only to you. I reckon this would be of interest and use to most BBO members who would appreciate objective feed-bake on their current form.

[fred]

I didn't mean to misrepresent Fred's posisiton and I'm sorry that I did.

 

I realise that it would require work, but I would appreciate Fred's view on the idea of enabling an option to insert rating field(s) into your profile that are visible only to you. I reckon this would be of interest and use to most BBO members who would appreciate objective feed-bake on their current form.

My guess is that "most BBO members" is a massive overbid.

 

I think that for every one BBO member who genuinely wants to track their progress and see if they are improving, there are many BBO members who do not want to know how poorly they really play.

 

Besides that, a system like you suggest does not address the main reason why people want rating systems: to know how well potential opponents play.

 

Your suggestion does has the virtue of being harmless from a social point of view.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Bsae Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

I think that * * * there are many BBO members who do not want to know how poorly they really play.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

 

Yeah, then you would have a lot of "D- Experts" and "12th Percentile Experts" and "-12.2 IMP/35% MP Experts" on BBO.

[helene_t]

I think that for every one BBO member who genuinely wants to track their progress and see if they are improving, there are many BBO members who do not want to know how poorly they really play.

I know perfectly well how bad I am, it's just that I don't want to be reminded of it constantly. :)

 

(Not going to repeat what has been said thousand times about the devastating social impact of rating systems).

[fred]

I think that for every one BBO member who genuinely wants to track their progress and see if they are improving, there are many BBO members who do not want to know how poorly they really play.

Please note that I was not trying to say that masses of BBO members play "poorly" in any absolute sense.

 

The type of rating systems used for online bridge do not attempt to measure absolute skill. Instead they measure skill relative to other players.

 

All I was trying to say was bridge players (and not just BBO members) tend to overestimate how well they play compared to other players.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mycroft]

Who was it who ran that poll of bridge players, and found that 90% of them were better than their partners?

 

Michael (who still thinks that "experts play with me" is the best rating I will get).

[kgr]

I play most of the time in the main bridge club with pick-up partners (I hope Fred or his partners also do this anonimiously, to see how this works). The self-rating of a lot of players is really painfull. Even adding comments on players doesn't help. Some days ago I was not the table host and an expert was allowed to play with me. I had marked him with bad and that prooved to be true again. No surprise you have a lot of table hopping (..is this English?) in the main bridge club. (Some time ago a post of a new BBO player showed that this is a real issue).

I vote for having a peer rating system like on Ebay. This could have two ratings: Play and friendlyness. You could only receive on rate per player. Play rating could be wheighted (giving more weight to players that are rated high themselve; some weight to the numbers of boards that are played).

I think that a rating system like that would improve the friendliness and quality of the site: For a good rating you need to be friendly and play long enough to convince your partner of your good play.

 

Regards,

Koen

[hotShot]

A fair rating is bridge is much more complex than e.g in chess.

 

This is because:

- in one table bridge there is no true winner

- the best player don't have to get best score

- the "first" boards of any new partnership are below standard because of insufficient agreements

- any tournament result is a function of the field, so an average score is meaningless if the field does not stay the same

- you need a significant number of boards to make sure skill is more important than luck

- there is no undisputed way to transform a pair/team result into an individual rating

 

Ratings based on boards played in MBC with partners or opps changing every 2nd board are worthless.

Ratings based on tourneys with 3-6 boards played are worthless.

Ratings based of tourney results with 12-15 boards played and more than 30 tables are worthless, because you play so few opps, that the field each pair has is almost completely different.

 

So most boards played online are of no valuable use far a rating system.

 

Maybe team games on BBO could be used to get some sort of rating, but what about those players you rarely play team?