Slitherine

Well done Mr Handley

I'm with Phil, any further on the rankings?

I still think counting your top 6 results is the way to go then people can take fun armies to odd competitions.

Rob

Yep, it is with the announcement on the venue and dates of The Worlds/Britcon...

I submitted a proposal to amend the way the rankings are calculate. I believe this proposal was accepted, hopefully there will be an official announcement shortly.

dave_r wrote: ... hopefully there will be an official announcement shortly.

Optimism triumphing again?

Don’t make me laugh still waiting for Britcon dates

Thanks for maintaining the rankings Dave R - and well done to Dave H for topping the table.

dave_r wrote:I submitted a proposal to amend the way the rankings are calculate. I believe this proposal was accepted, hopefully there will be an official announcement shortly.

We, or I should say I as I do it, also use 1-100 points for our national championship. Mainly because I think it's easy for players to understand, despite being somewhat simplistic in idea (but perhaps not in how the BHGS implements it currently! ).

But I just sum the results with only the best 4 counting. Much easier. We also start from 0 every year, so you get lots of nice up and down movement in the rankings at the start of the year.

Due to the wonders of modern technology rolling year to date and start from 0 after end of last years can be done at the same time for very little extra effort. The reason BHGS likes rolling YTD is for seeding. But I do believe starting at 0 after Britcon is the way ahead and will make each year a bit more fun to watch. Especially if there's a few little competitions early on. And also I agree with best 4 as very few can make 6 competitions in a year.

Best 6 is used specifically so Mr Dalby can't be top - the BHGS help by scheduling events when they know he is unavailable...

If it was best 4 the BHGS might not be able to find enough weekends that Pete can't make :)

Best 6 is used specifically so Mr Dalby can't be top - the BHGS help by scheduling events when they know he is unavailable...

If it was best 4 the BHGS might not be able to find enough weekends that Pete can't make

Thanks Tim!!

philqw78 wrote:Due to the wonders of modern technology rolling year to date and start from 0 after end of last years can be done at the same time for very little extra effort. The reason BHGS likes rolling YTD is for seeding.

We don't have seeding, so that makes life easier. But with much smaller competitions, it serves no purpose - assuming the Swiss system over 4 rounds finds the winner by approximating a knockout for 16 players. Seeding just adds a "theoretical" round, I believe.

philqw78 wrote:But I do believe starting at 0 after Britcon is the way ahead and will make each year a bit more fun to watch. Especially if there's a few little competitions early on.

Bragging rights for early leaders not from the usual faces.

Probably also the raw sum of best 4 (or whatever) is easier to follow than the average, especially if you publish the ranking points achieved for each meeting. For example, if you have 4 scores of 30 + 50 + 50 + 50, it's not so hard to figure out what you need to improve your ranking. But what does an average score of 45 mean (no pun intended)? KISS means you can let everyone know the details, if they want (most don't care).

philqw78 wrote:And also I agree with best 4 as very few can make 6 competitions in a year.

I couldn't comment, you have many more competitions for sure. One problem with only 4 is you may end up with more than one player on the maximum. But that's balanced by having many more players, so two getting perfect scores is much harder I would imagine.

timmy1 wrote:Best 6 is used specifically so Mr Dalby can't be top - the BHGS help by scheduling events when they know he is unavailable...

If it was best 4 the BHGS might not be able to find enough weekends that Pete can't make

What a cunning plan, wonder if ...

The BHGS also gives more points for the bigger comps, I think this will probably continue with any new system at least for Challenge and Britcon. Since they would be worth more towards the max score (of 400 divided by 4) you would really need to do well in them and come first in two others I would assume.

I don't want to steal anybody's thunder, but the proposals were accepted and should be announced shortly. It doesn't really make any difference since they wouldn't start for ages anyway. I suspect for a while I will be calculating three sets of rankings

I think the main problem with the rankings as they stand is that very few people actually know how they are calculated and how they work - I would like that to change to make it more inclusive.

To be honest, the real reason for the rankings is

- Give people a chance to boast in various yahoo groups and internet forums
- Pick the GB team for the ITC

Seeding makes very little difference anyway and only slightly affects the first round draw at the Challenge and Britcon so in reality can be discounted.

dave_r wrote:
To be honest, the real reason for the rankings is

- Give people a chance to boast in various yahoo groups and internet forums
- Pick the GB team for the ITC

Seeding makes very little difference anyway and only slightly affects the first round draw at the Challenge and Britcon so in reality can be discounted.

Originally one of the reasons for the rankings, and the reason why you needed to attend 6 comps to be able to get a full ranking score, was to encourage people to attend more competitions.

nikgaukroger wrote:

dave_r wrote:
To be honest, the real reason for the rankings is

- Give people a chance to boast in various yahoo groups and internet forums
- Pick the GB team for the ITC

Seeding makes very little difference anyway and only slightly affects the first round draw at the Challenge and Britcon so in reality can be discounted.

Originally one of the reasons for the rankings, and the reason why you needed to attend 6 comps to be able to get a full ranking score, was to encourage people to attend more competitions.

I was going to keep quiet about that one. If people find out they are being manipulated they have a tendency to revolt.

And the last thing we want is revolting wargamers. That's what the BHGS are for.

But if only your best 4 count you will be encouraged to attend more as your score can never get worse. At the moment your score can go down with more competitions entered as scores are averaged for the smaller comps.

philqw78 wrote:But if only your best 4 count you will be encouraged to attend more as your score can never get worse. At the moment your score can go down with more competitions entered as scores are averaged for the smaller comps.

You misunderstand - the rankings were to encourage attendance.

We've just changed them slightly to make it more effective at encouraging attendance

Dave, I was checking the MAWS players in the rankings. Peter Womack seems to be doing especially well. No comps played but more points than some other players who have.

Ah. I have missed out one of the formula's on petes ranking. Pete has competed in one tournament (britcon). I will correct when i publish the january rankings.

I am prepared to accept partial responsibility for this