lol meck owns everyone

[JLOGIC]

http://www.coloradospringsbridge.com/PR_FI...PAGES/ALLPR.HTM

 

Meck is a full POINT ahead of 2nd with an astonishing 36.09 rating, that is just incredible, over a nearly 100 game sample too. Absurd. When I grow up I wanna be Meck!

 

Also maybe interesting is that Debbie Rosenberg is absolutely destroying all other women in this (as well as being tied for 3rd overall).

 

Obv this thing is not perfect at all and doesn't really mean anything but I just thought it was funny that even a random imperfect system knows that meck owns everyone :D

[bluecalm]

How is it calculated ?

Meck is by far my favorite player. I watched like few thousand hands from vu archives from his perspective (with all other cards hidden trying to guess his actions).

When I play I often ask myself "what would Meck do" :D

[jjbrr]

rodwell is #47!?

[JLOGIC]

rodwell is #47!?

rod sux.

 

Heh, honestly rod is being brought down a lot by his partner (meck) having such a high rating, which gives his average partnerships a much higher rating.

[JLOGIC]

How is it calculated ?

Meck is by far my favorite player. I watched like few thousand hands from vu archives from his perspective (with all other cards hidden trying to guess his actions).

When I play I often ask myself "what would Meck do" :D

This is for you then:

 

http://www.coloradospringsbridge.com/PR_FI...EB/S4580699.HTM

 

Meckstroths personal summary. 59.48 % average in 6.44 difficulty games, with avg 29.83 partners.

 

For reference, eddie wold (who is 2nd), averages the same 59.48, but in something like 2.02 difficulty! Wold has a much lower average partner though, but still keeping up such a high average in high degree of difficulty is tough!

[dicklont]

.. I watched like few thousand hands from vu archives from his perspective (with all other cards hidden trying to guess his actions)...

How do you do that?

Can I do that too?

[bluecalm]

How do you do that?

Can I do that too?

 

1)Find interesting event like spingold final, usbf, bermuda bowl etc.

2)Download .lin files from either vugraph project webpage or from bbo vugraph archives.

3)Format every file that way that you add |pg| tag before every |pc| tag and every |mb| tag; good text editor will do that for you

4)open formated files using old bbo client;

5)click on your chosen player's name, all other hands will disappear

6)click "next" , "next" etc, stop when your favorite player is to play; try to guess what he bids/plays and click "next".

7) repeat !

...

8)see why you are not Meckstroth or Versace yet !

 

I have almost all MR hands available from vugraph from this century formatted that way on my hd so if you have problems with those steps pm me and I can email them to you.

[dicklont]

Thanks a lot.

I'll first try your 8-step program.

 

Step 8: when I understand why that's progress, but "yet" will always remain "ever"

[rogerclee]

Meckstroth's matchpoint record in national pair games is really absurd to me. Being able to average 57% in events like the Blues, LMP, etc, is ridiculous; 60% for almost anyone would be a huge set, but apparently for Meckwell it is only a bit above average. This means that the difference in ability between Meckwell and the field in the blue ribbon pairs is about the difference in ability between a strong expert and an average pair in a regional pair game. It is also ridiculous that he was able to average 56% in national pair games with Perry Johnson, who is a reasonable but by no means world class player.

 

For reference, someone like Fred, who is one of the most successful players in the country, averages about 55% with his regular partner Brad Moss, which I am sure is one of the strongest longterm performances for an American pair. A pair of strong experts could expect to average about 52% in 3-day pair events in the long term.

[bluecalm]

It's a pity there isn't much (any ?) vugraph history of Meckwell playign matchpoints.

I wonder how different is MP play than IMP play.

[dkharty]

...Perry Johnson, who is a reasonable but by no means world class player.

Perry is ranked as a World International Master by the WBF, currently #258 in the world. Tough standards!

[qwery_hi]

How is it calculated ?

Meck is by far my favorite player. I watched like few thousand hands from vu archives from his perspective (with all other cards hidden trying to guess his actions).

When I play I often ask myself "what would Meck do" :)

This is for you then:

 

http://www.coloradospringsbridge.com/PR_FI...EB/S4580699.HTM

 

Meckstroths personal summary. 59.48 % average in 6.44 difficulty games, with avg 29.83 partners.

 

For reference, eddie wold (who is 2nd), averages the same 59.48, but in something like 2.02 difficulty! Wold has a much lower average partner though, but still keeping up such a high average in high degree of difficulty is tough!

Meck's best game was with James Gleick, author of a fine Feynman biography.

[kayin801]

Worst game since AUGUST 2008 (2 years!!!): 46.56%

 

... goddammit

[rogerclee]

...Perry Johnson, who is a reasonable but by no means world class player.

Perry is ranked as a World International Master by the WBF, currently #258 in the world. Tough standards!

lol

[rogerclee]

Worst game since AUGUST 2008 (2 years!!!): 46.56%

 

... goddammit

In a national pair game! There are many good players who could play 100 sessions at an average club and never go below 46.56.

[NickRW]

Worst game since AUGUST 2008 (2 years!!!): 46.56%

 

... goddammit

In a national pair game! There are many good players who could play 100 sessions at an average club and never go below 46.56.

Don't agree. You never had to play with headache - or something else that puts you off your game - plus everyone - and I mean everyone - sooner or later runs into a streak of bad beats. The fact that a given individual or pair has one session under whatever blah score is meaningless in the long term.

 

Nick

[barmar]

rodwell is #47!?

What I think this means is that Jeff plays a little better than Eric when they're not playing with each other.

[JanM]

What exactly is this list? There are a lot of good and not-so-good players on it, and there are some numbers that I don't understand. Apparently it has something to do with matchpoint performance? How do they choose whether to include someone on the list?

[inquiry]

What exactly is this list? There are a lot of good and not-so-good players on it, and there are some numbers that I don't understand. Apparently it has something to do with matchpoint performance? How do they choose whether to include someone on the list?

Doubt it will help much, but here is an explaination of the power ratings....

 

http://www.coloradospringsbridge.com/PR_FILES/EXPLAIN.HTM

 

you can go to the main webpage and punch around in it under tournaments to find more info on it as well.

[TimG]

What exactly is this list? There are a lot of good and not-so-good players on it, and there are some numbers that I don't understand. Apparently it has something to do with matchpoint performance? How do they choose whether to include someone on the list?

From what I have read, results from NABC pair games are included. But, one of the requirements for making the list is that a player must play at least 12 sessions with someone other than their regular partner. So, those players who always (or virtually always) play with the same partner won't appear on the list.

[Phil]

Reading the description of how the power rankings are determined, it does not take into account the level of the opponents (like Lehman's do) nor the level of the tournament. It would appear sectionals (or even club games if they are reported) would have the same gravity as NABC's.

[qwery_hi]

Reading the description of how the power rankings are determined, it does not take into account the level of the opponents (like Lehman's do) nor the level of the tournament. It would appear sectionals (or even club games if they are reported) would have the same gravity as NABC's.

Incorrect.

 

From the explanation - "Your game percentage (G%) for each and every game you play is divided into 3 parts. Your contribution/Power Rating (PR). Your partners contribution/Power Rating (Part) Your opponents contribution/ Power Rating (DOD). The sum of the opponents sitting your way, N/S if you are sitting N/S, is averaged and the amount above or below the average pair (50) is your degree of difficulty (DOD).

PR = G% + DOD - Part or PR + Part - DOD = G%"

 

Since the opponents PR at Nationals will be more, the DOD for Nationals will be more.

So a same percentage game at the NABC's will result in a higher PR.

[NickRW]

Yeah. As rating systems go, it is probably about as good as you can get.

 

If I've read between the lines correctly, and if the EBU ever actually gets around to doing it, would be very similar - except that it would be a rolling average of your last 1000 or so boards.

 

Nick

[Mbodell]

What exactly is this list? There are a lot of good and not-so-good players on it, and there are some numbers that I don't understand. Apparently it has something to do with matchpoint performance? How do they choose whether to include someone on the list?

This is a quite good rating system for individual performance (and partnership performance, if you look at other links) in matchpointed games.

 

It includes all nationals, regionals, sectionals (not STAC), and a small number of clubs (get your clubs to submit their results to get a better rating for everyone).

 

To be rated as an individual player you have to play 12 rated games with other rated players, similarly partnerships can be rated playing at least 12 games (only matchpointed games count) over the past 2 years (only the past 2 years count). People without this many games are still rated (and you can find their ratings by looking at individual events or what not), but the author of the site feels the ratings have too little data and are thus suspect and hence doesn't list them in the top X players list.

 

The scale is such that the average player is a 25. Each point is 1 extra percentage. If a 26 player and a 27 player played together in an average field their expected score would be 53% (26+27). If the same players played together on the first day of the blue ribbons (field strength around +9, iirc) they'd be expected to score 44% (26+27-9). If the same players played together in one of my local clubs 299er games (field strength around -10) they'd be expected to score 63% (26+27+10). The field strength is just the average partnership strength. So if you had a field that was made up of nothing but people rated 26 the field strength would be 2 (26+26 = 52, 52-50 = 2 field strength of 2).

 

Meckstroth's rating of 35.96 in 101 games (now that New Orleans has been added) means that if he was playing with an average player in an average field he'd expect to score 60.96%.

 

You can also look at the top partnership ratings (the average partnership is 50, as two 25 rated people form a 50 partnership): pair ratings

 

Here Ramer-Kwiecien slightly edge Meckwell for the top matchpoint partnership with at least 12 rated games. The scores above 69 mean that they'd be expected to score that 69% in an average field. In a field like day 1 of the blue ribbons they'd be expected to score 60 (subtract the strength of field 9).

 

In this list there are two numbers the PairR, which is the rating they'd achieved as a pair, and the PR which is the sum of the two player's power rating (assuming each player has a power rating from playing enough games with enough different partners). You can see, for example, that Meckwell play slightly better together than they do with other partners. From their "raw" individual results they'd be expected to be "only" 68.74 but they are 69.17 instead.

 

Note also that Meckstroth is a member of the 2nd rated pair (Meckwell) and the 5th rated pair (Meckstroth and Perry Johnson).

 

In addition to how impressive Meckstroth is, note that the Diamond team has all 3 of its pairs in the top 28 rated matchpoint partnerships. Gittleman-Moss are 10th with 66.62, Diamond-Platnick are 19th with 65.96, and Greco-Hampson are 28th with 65.65. And this is only matchpoint results, so the pairs get no credit for any results in team games like, say, winning the spingold.

[awm]

The problem with this rating system is that it's designed in a way that enforces linearity on a lot of the relationships. There are pretty easy examples to show that this isn't true.

 

For example, Elianna and I have a rating of around 59. When we play in our local club game, our average score is in the low 60s. When we play on the first day of a national pairs, our average score is in the low 50s. The "degree of difficulty" should account for the differential.

 

All very well so far. Meckstroth and Rodwell have a rating of around 69. It's quite believable (though impressive) that their average score on the first day of national pairs is in the low 60s. However, I don't believe that their average score in our local club game would be in the low 70s. It's almost impossible to have an expected score which is this high against even a marginally competent field, simply because there will be some flat boards and some boards where you get "fixed" by the opponents doing something good that the field can't manage.

 

To give an even more extreme example, suppose for some reason Meckstroth and Rodwell played in a very weak game (like a 299er pairs). Would their expected score be almost 90%? I really doubt it; sheer randomness will cause them to score only in the 70s probably...

 

So my point is that the effect of strength-of-field is not actually linear. The net effect on the rating system is that people who consistently play in very difficult rated events only (and don't play regularly in rated club games for example) will tend to have higher ratings than people who at least occasionally play in weak fields.

 

Maybe another way to state this is the following. If Elianna and I play in the same LM pairs field as Meckwell, they will score better than us with extremely high probability. However, if we both play in the same 299er game (ignore the fact that this isn't allowed) we are both going to score ridiculously high. I think it becomes pretty random (based on gifts from opponents, what the field does on boards, etc) whether Elianna and I will score better or Meckwell do. The point is that when you have a pair which is much better than the field as a whole they always do well, but exactly how well is somewhat random and you can't compare two really good pairs based on their performance against really bad fields. Similarly, if you take two beginner pairs and throw them into the blue ribbons, they will both do really badly. But I don't think you can conclude that the pair that has a 35% game is "clearly better" than the pair that had a 30% game.