Slitherine

philqw78 wrote:

The new FoG Rankings 2008 section is now available in the "on the field of glory"

Where is this??

Here: http://www.fieldofglory.com/onthefieldofglory.php

Cheers,
Scott

hazelbark wrote:

hammy wrote: The problem was that the rest of the world seemed to want the UK to use Glicko but the UK could not use their software because most UK comps are doubles and the rest of the world Glicko didn't understand the concept of doubles.

Which is not accurate as the international glicko software does have a whole provision for retaining and reporting doubles scoring. We choose not to use it in the US as we only have 1-2 doubles events. I haven't heard of other doubles events else where. But the software has whole pages of instructions how to enter double scores.

I know for a fact that when the UK started with Glicko that the international software could not be used because of doubles. I also know that for whatever reason the international software has never been made available to the UK despite several requests. At least that is what I have been told by the UK Glicko admin.

I believe that doubles was added to the international software long after Glicko started to be used in the UK.

WhiteKnight wrote: Apologies if this is revisiting a well-trodden path but I do get a sense from this forum of a large, international group of wargamers who want to support and learn from each other at the same time as playing competitively and it may be timely to put past differences of system to one side and start with a fresh structure?

That's the intention

A bit of (vague) history:

Past ranking systems have either been glicko (similar to that used in chess), which is comprehensive but complex to administer
and understand, or some sort of points assignment. In the UK it's a linear points assignment based on your final position in
a tournament. Eg first is 100, last is 1. You can see the full details on the BHGS web site under rankings.

The French had a similar but slightly more complex system a while back, but total points for a tournament were based on
ranking points of players, with players on a scale of 1 to 5. Points given to players for a tournament were on an approximately
exponential decay, ie the top places scored much more. I don't know how their system works now.

Currently, as far as I'm aware, the US uses glicko. In Italy we used glicko but switched back to a linear points as per the UK
for this year. Spain, Portugal, Greece, Germany...?


Based on what folks have written, I would propose:

Using a linear scoring system to start with as it's easy to run whilst FoG is getting off the ground. But keep full results as
much as possible should anyone volunteer to do the glicko stats at some point.

Similar per the BHGS system, a:

Grand slam is 120 (slight increase)
Major is 100
Minor is 80

Start from after Helsinki, running until the next FoG world champion (note this is distinct from the IWF world champion
in ancients, which depends on total entries for rules systems, IIRC).

1. Count any IWF event as a Grand Slam (Worlds or European, or...). This keeps IWF events as special meetings.
2. Each country can nominate one event to count as a major.
3. Everything else is a minor.

I realise there are several big UK events, but if you start counting them all as majors or grand slams, then like I said, the danger
is it becomes UK rankings with a splash of international. In the UK one wouldn't need to go to international meetings to gain a high
international ranking, which defeats the whole purpose really.


Lastly, you'd need a national coordinator to forward results to...?

Rgds,
Peter

peterrjohnston wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:Excellent idea. From after this year's Helsinki FoG world champion would be an ideal starting point, as you'd be leading to a overall "yearly" champion at the end of the next.

Well with only 11 people signed up according to the website, I think Helsinki FoG is a demo which is sort of the intent. So i think post-Helsinki is the starting time frame.

That's what I was saying, in agreement with OP. Start at zero post-Helsinki, run to next FoG world championship.

I agree that running from WIC to WIC seems like a good idea.


Robert:
This thread seems to be as good a place as any to discuss ideas on some sort of international FoG rankings

Dan:
The suggestion for 50+ players equaling a Major or Grand slam was intended purely as a starting point, if you read my subsequent post you will see some other comments.

Peter:
If there is a European championship it is either not a regular event or I am not aware of it. There was one European Individual Championships last year but it was the only one to date. It will also most likely only ever be every other year as the IWF continental championships only run when the WIC is not in that area so there is no EIC this year.

Martin:
At the moment in the UK all events would count towards a ranking. Unless you attend more than 6 events you will only increase your ranking by playing. For the UK rankings the grand slams are the BHGS Challenge and Britcon, the majors are Warfare and Roll Call, everything else is a minor.

Back to thoughts:

I think we are talking about a ranking system where relative placing in events during the year from WiC to WiC.
We would need to agree a maximum number of events to count but to bear in mind that setting it too high could exclude some countries
How to classify events needs to be decided.
- the WIC should always be a Grand Slam event
- each other country should be allowed to nominate one event as a major
- should ther be other events considered as grand slams (suggest, Britcon, Historicon, Cancon, one other?)
- there should be a minimum size for an event to count towards the rankings (suggested 8 players)
- should there be a minimum number of rounds for an event to count (3 has been mooted, I think perhaps at present any event should count)

I am talking to Toby Partridge about using his rankings software to allow more information than just ranking to be presented. There is even a possibility that at some point in the future for those who are actually lnterested in Glikco that Tobys system may be able to do Glicko too.

Let me know what you think about the above, suggestions are always welcome.

Bear in mind that if Slitherine are going to offer prizes for the top players then they may have some degree of say in where things end up.

More thoughts;

When a new season starts the grand slam / major events of each region could be locked in based on attendance levels of the previous year. For example if numbers for FoG drop at Cancon but rise at GenConOz then the grand slam for Australia automatically shifts. Obviously you'd need arbitrary choices in the first year but from then on the system is smart enough to tell us where the big-point events will be.

Will we want a world title playoff where the top x points-earners of the year are invited to attend ('winner takes all') or shall we simply award the title to whoever in the world can get the most points by whatever means necessary?

Back to thoughts:

I think we are talking about a ranking system where relative placing in events during the year from WiC to WiC.
We would need to agree a maximum number of events to count but to bear in mind that setting it too high could exclude some countries
How to classify events needs to be decided.
- the WIC should always be a Grand Slam event
- each other country should be allowed to nominate one event as a major
- should ther be other events considered as grand slams (suggest, Britcon, Historicon, Cancon, one other?)
- there should be a minimum size for an event to count towards the rankings (suggested 8 players)
- should there be a minimum number of rounds for an event to count (3 has been mooted, I think perhaps at present any event should count)

I agree with hammy, but I think that Grand Slams, must have 40 or 50 entries at least, and minor events, should be rated including the number of entries, there is comps with 16 entries and others with 36 for example.

Other Idea, here in Spain in torunaments with various pools we are doing a joint classification to used in our rankings.


David

How do the ranking compare with the dbm rankings ? Are the same players at the top of the list, or has fresh talent been unearthed ?

Scrumpy wrote:How do the ranking compare with the dbm rankings ? Are the same players at the top of the list, or has fresh talent been unearthed ?

So far the names doing well in UK FoG tournaments are all people who played DBM. That said there have not been that many comps and the rankings as they stand do reward players who play several events which is something more likely from commited tournament players.

Some of the players near the top are players who would have perhaps been mid table in DBM and some of the players from the top of the DBM pile have dropped to mid table.

It will be interesting to see how things progress.

So what was the opening date for the current FOG rankings and what competitions were included in the calculations? I understand from Hammy all competitions held in the UK count at least as a "minor" and the greatest no of competitions anyone has registered as being in is 3...most people who have been in 3 comps are near the top of the table. Do you have to register somewhere/with someone to be included in the rankings? Do comp organisers have to register their comps?

Strange as it may seem I have been wargaming in the ancient period since the late 1970's and all of this has passed me by! Having played WRG 5th/6th/7th and dba/m and run comps for 20+ players, I had no idea of all this ranking stuff and grand slam/major/minor comps! So do forgive what may be extemely naive questions!

Martin

Hi folks.

Would a club tournament run as a round robin format spread out over a few months count for the FoG rankings? Here at Group North Historical Wargames Society in South Australia we use round robin tournaments with games played on club meeting nights, rather than hold weekend tournaments. Would this format still count as a minor tournament? The current tournament has 8 players, the next one starting in August is likely to have 8 to 12 players.

Geography is going to be a limitation on how often the player pools in Australia interact, so the only major mixing is likely to be at Cancon. I suggest waiting to see what the turnout at Cancon will be before deciding if it is a minor, major or grand slam.

Regards,
Ross Dawe.

I would have no problem including a club round robin tournament. If anything that is tougher to win than most comps and includes more games.

A knockout comp wouldn't really work as the ranking works on relative places and if you ended up with 1,2,3,3,5,5,5,5,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9, etc. it would be a bit odd.

WhiteKnight wrote:So what was the opening date for the current FOG rankings and what competitions were included in the calculations? I understand from Hammy all competitions held in the UK count at least as a "minor" and the greatest no of competitions anyone has registered as being in is 3...most people who have been in 3 comps are near the top of the table. Do you have to register somewhere/with someone to be included in the rankings? Do comp organisers have to register their comps?

Strange as it may seem I have been wargaming in the ancient period since the late 1970's and all of this has passed me by! Having played WRG 5th/6th/7th and dba/m and run comps for 20+ players, I had no idea of all this ranking stuff and grand slam/major/minor comps! So do forgive what may be extemely naive questions!

Martin

The rankings have been run by the BHGS for a fair time now. There used to be the SOA rankings but they were a different beast.

Essentially if you play in a comp and I get a copy of the results or can get the results off the web it will count.

To my knowledge there have been five FoG tournaments so far this year but not all are in the rankings

The first was Usk in January which despite getting a good turnout isn't counted because it was before publication.
Next was the Burton doubles which is included as it was just after publication of the rules.
Then the Leeds doubles (round one of the SOA doubles masters) also included
The second round of the Northern league had a FoG comp but at present it is not in the rankings because it was just one day, historically the Northern league has counted as a single event for the whole years league but this may change if one day comps are included.
Finally there was the BHGS Challenge where there were 42 15mm and 10 25mm players.

Players who have 3 comps counting will have Burton, Leeds and the Challenge. Bruce won Burton, came 3rd at Leeds and 2nd at the Challenge so is in a very strong possition at this stage of the year.

So the long and short of it is if you play in a comp you will get a ranking.

Hammy,

As the new President (actually more like a tyrant) of the Spanish Federation, we will apply the BHGS system for FoG rankings in Spain. If you happen to have a document explaining in detail what this consists of, could you please email it to me. Ta.

Regards,

Julian

hammy wrote:Players who have 3 comps counting will have Burton, Leeds and the Challenge. Bruce won Burton, came 3rd at Leeds and 2nd at the Challenge so is in a very strong possition at this stage of the year.

Dave Handley has the better average per competition. He won the Challenge and came second at Leeds. Until we get six competitions on the board, it's a little meaningless for the moment. Of course when I say meaningless, it does its job which is to provide endless opportunities for trash talk and debate!

bddbrown wrote:

hammy wrote:Players who have 3 comps counting will have Burton, Leeds and the Challenge. Bruce won Burton, came 3rd at Leeds and 2nd at the Challenge so is in a very strong possition at this stage of the year.

Dave Handley has the better average per competition. He won the Challenge and came second at Leeds. Until we get six competitions on the board, it's a little meaningless for the moment. Of course when I say meaningless, it does its job which is to provide endless opportunities for trash talk and debate!

It just goes to make the next comp a bit more exciting, Dave, You, Si and everyone else trying to get some points.