Slitherine

Martin0112 wrote:

babyshark wrote:I will weep tears of bitter frustration until this deep injustice is remedied.



Marc

I think the reason for this is that the ITC is not using the 25-0 results for the fnial ranking, they 'translate' it in a 3-2-1-0 ranking, which is used for the ranking of the ITC.
Our ranking-page is showing the results based on the 25-0 results, we cannot implement different ranking systems.
This is the reason for the different views, sorry for this

I am destined to weep tears of bitter frustration then.

This is less fun than it looks.

Okay. I'll stop. It just wasn't worth it.

Marc

babyshark wrote:

Martin0112 wrote:

babyshark wrote:I will weep tears of bitter frustration until this deep injustice is remedied.



Marc

I think the reason for this is that the ITC is not using the 25-0 results for the fnial ranking, they 'translate' it in a 3-2-1-0 ranking, which is used for the ranking of the ITC.
Our ranking-page is showing the results based on the 25-0 results, we cannot implement different ranking systems.
This is the reason for the different views, sorry for this

I am destined to weep tears of bitter frustration then.

This is less fun than it looks.

Okay. I'll stop. It just wasn't worth it.

Marc

THAT's real sportsmanship!!!!!

All results for Roll Call are now also in the ranking

Martin0112 wrote:All results for Roll Call are now also in the ranking

Good Stuff Martin I see you are working on the Stockport results as well.

A question, with respect to army ELO ratings does the system take into account the relative ratings of the players or does it assume that all players are equal to calculate the ELO of the armies?

philqw78 wrote:I'll give you something easier.

Grossichbinausweiss Egypten

Clue. Its an army list

I wish Johny Foreigner would learn to speak bloody English. It would make communication a lot easier.

Anyway, that is easy - Gross Egyptian.

Although Babelfish disagrees and tells me it is "I am a large White Egyptian"

dave_r wrote:I wish Johny Foreigner would learn to speak bloody English. It would make communication a lot easier.

Anyway, that is easy - Gross Egyptian.

Although Babelfish disagrees and tells me it is "I am a large White Egyptian"

Grossichbinausweiss Egypten

Gross = Fat
Ich bin = I'm
Ausweiss = ID
Egypten=Egyptian

therefore
Fatimid Egyptian.

philqw78 wrote:

dave_r wrote:I wish Johny Foreigner would learn to speak bloody English. It would make communication a lot easier.

Anyway, that is easy - Gross Egyptian.

Although Babelfish disagrees and tells me it is "I am a large White Egyptian"

Grossichbinausweiss Egypten

Gross = Fat
Ich bin = I'm
Ausweiss = ID
Egypten=Egyptian

therefore
Fatimid Egyptian.

Little correction:

Gross means BIG, and Fat is Fett, so fully correct it should be Fettichbinausweiss Ägypter

hammy wrote:

Martin0112 wrote:All results for Roll Call are now also in the ranking

Good Stuff Martin I see you are working on the Stockport results as well.

A question, with respect to army ELO ratings does the system take into account the relative ratings of the players or does it assume that all players are equal to calculate the ELO of the armies?

The army ranking is NOT taking any player's strength into account.

Martin0112 wrote:Little correction:

Gross means BIG, and Fat is Fett, so fully correct it should be Fettichbinausweiss Ägypter

German is a very technical language. Thanks Martin.

Martin0112 wrote:

hammy wrote: A question, with respect to army ELO ratings does the system take into account the relative ratings of the players or does it assume that all players are equal to calculate the ELO of the armies?

The army ranking is NOT taking any player's strength into account.

To elaborate a bit, we did consider it, but the problem starts with... what Player ELO to use? The most current? That would be comparably easy, but is it any more accurate then not considering the player rating? A player might have had a significantly better or worse rating at the time he used the army. Using the ELO score a player had when playing that army OTOH is a technical problem. It would require on the fly calculation of the player ELOs at the time they used the army for every single player and occasion. For popular armies this would simply require to much (CPU) time.

Ghaznavid wrote:

Martin0112 wrote:

hammy wrote: A question, with respect to army ELO ratings does the system take into account the relative ratings of the players or does it assume that all players are equal to calculate the ELO of the armies?

The army ranking is NOT taking any player's strength into account.

To elaborate a bit, we did consider it, but the problem starts with... what Player ELO to use? The most current? That would be comparably easy, but is it any more accurate then not considering the player rating? A player might have had a significantly better or worse rating at the time he used the army. Using the ELO score a player had when playing that army OTOH is a technical problem. It would require on the fly calculation of the player ELOs at the time they used the army for every single player and occasion. For popular armies this would simply require to much (CPU) time.

Hey, I never said it would be easy
I do appreciate the problem. The thing is that what temsd to happen is a few decent players find an army that suits them and that they know how to play. The army makes its way up to near the top of the rankings and then get noticed by lesser players who do badly with them and as a result the rankings of the army drops. Just look at the volatility of the army ELO graphs. I am not sure how much can actually be read inot the army stats as they stand.
The army ELO does provide interesting reading but if you compare the top 10 armies now with the top 10 6 months ago you are quite likely to see significant changes.

hammy wrote: I do appreciate the problem. The thing is that what temsd to happen is a few decent players find an army that suits them and that they know how to play. The army makes its way up to near the top of the rankings and then get noticed by lesser players who do badly with them and as a result the rankings of the army drops. Just look at the volatility of the army ELO graphs. I am not sure how much can actually be read inot the army stats as they stand.
The army ELO does provide interesting reading but if you compare the top 10 armies now with the top 10 6 months ago you are quite likely to see significant changes.

Not to much and we stated just that in the FAQ (you did read that, right?)
There is a reason why the preselected sorting is by popularity and not ELO, you know.
Even if we included a player ELO score, the discussion would then be how to weight it properly. In a way the army ELO scores often normalize themselves somewhat. Because as you stated, after some good players used an army to good effect a number of other players try to emulate them with various levels of "success". So army ELOs are more of an roller coaster then player ELOs, but with enough samples the end results may still have some significance.
What might be possible is to give an average of the ELO scores of the players that used the army. I.e. current army ELO is 1520, average player ELO of the players that used the army is 1640. Something like that might help a bit, still the problem remains that I would have to use the current player ELO scores instead of the player ELO at the time of using the army.

Ghaznavid wrote:Not to much and we stated just that in the FAQ (you did read that, right?)
There is a reason why the preselected sorting is by popularity and not ELO, you know.

All very sensible.

Personally I think that army decisiveness data is more interesting that anything else.

It might be possible to do a tournament by tournament predicted vs expected results report where you compare player and army ELO valuse and see how the end results compare to what would be expected. Not sure if that would be of any use or interest but it would be possible I think.

I have tried this for my private fun for the results of some german tournaments (but for players only).
It shows that the ranking is really strong, as it produces very logical results (so normally the ELO-ranking is more than 80% correct with the final tournament results)

And also for BritCon the results were pretty good.

I have not tried to do this for the army-results, but I haven't done it yet.

I can try to do it for the German Open in March or for the 'Neujahrsturnier' we habe in Germany next weekend.

but I agree in general with Ghaznavid, that some armies are rated pretty good in ELO because some players with high skills use them. As soon as other players are seeing: 'Hey, this is a good army!', they try to use it... and fail.

So there will be many more ups and downs in that ranking.
If this means as a conclusion, that many different armies are played in the future, this is a positive side effect.

My personal opinion is, that the quality of the player is decisive for the results on the table and the army choice is maybe influenzing this with 15 or 20%, not more.

By the way, I have entered all results I found for 2010 now.
Everybody reading this should have a quick look to see if there are maybe some results missing and let me know, so I can try to find the results somewhere somehow, and have them entered.

I wish everybody a HAPPY NEW YEAR 2011!

Fine work you are doing Martin and Karsten.

I have the godendag doubles results - do you want to PM me with your email address? It will take me some time to put the results in a "normal" format.

I am sure it works for RBS, but personally, I prefer to use one spreadsheet and not four hundred and fifty seven...

Martin / Kirsten,

Sorry - just a gentle reminder - have you got the Godendag results? If so do you plan to plug them in the doubles rankings?

I am getting badgered by the mob wanting a lynching...

Hi Martin / Karsten

My son is Jacob Taylor-Whyte but I think you have him down both as Jacob Taylor-Whyte and Jacob Taylor.

Can you please correct.

Thanks

Rob

Is there a problem with the www.fieldofglory.com site ? i cannot get access to it . Internet just says , sorry no access to the site

It is slow but still works. Top of the BHGS rankings to end of July is now on there, plus some info on Britcon.