View my actual Elo/Glicko-2 score?

[Ondrashek06]

Notice how I said "Elo" instead of "ELO" - I'm not talking about BGA's version of matchmaking rating (which starts at 0, can't fall if below 100 and so on), but the actual Elo ranking system used in games like chess.

Is there a place where I can see my rating based on a system like that or Glicko-2?

[Meeplelowda]

Notice how I said "Elo" instead of "ELO" - I'm not talking about BGA's version of matchmaking rating (which starts at 0, can't fall if below 100 and so on), but the actual Elo ranking system used in games like chess.

Is there a place where I can see my rating based on a system like that or Glicko-2?

The only thing like that BGA tracks is your rating in Arena, and it resets to 1500 every season.

I've read elsewhere that there used to be an Elo/Glicko-style rating instead of the current system, but people's feelings got hurt when their rating fell below their self-perceived strength.

[Sjarmtrollet]

I've read elsewhere that there used to be an Elo/Glicko-style rating instead of the current system, but people's feelings got hurt when their rating fell below their self-perceived strength.

But this is apparently no problem on a site like *, if I am correct?


*moderator edit: please do not name other gaming platforms

AUTHOR EDIT: Please do not stifle discussion with irrational censorship. This was not an advertisement.

[Fletcheese]

I've read elsewhere that there used to be an Elo/Glicko-style rating instead of the current system, but people's feelings got hurt when their rating fell below their self-perceived strength.

But this is apparently no problem on a site like *, if I am correct?

Is this sarcasm? The problem is surely the same where some peoples' feelings do get hurt, it's just a matter of whether the site owners care. BGA decided to go one route and other sites went a different one

[Sjarmtrollet]

I've read elsewhere that there used to be an Elo/Glicko-style rating instead of the current system, but people's feelings got hurt when their rating fell below their self-perceived strength.

But this is apparently no problem on a site like *, if I am correct?

Is this sarcasm? The problem is surely the same where some peoples' feelings do get hurt, it's just a matter of whether the site owners care. BGA decided to go one route and other sites went a different one

Nah, I just assumed that * being used by pro chess players has a proper ELO system, just wasn't sure about it. Chess is quite an unforgiving game that filters out people who can't handle losing. * also has quite a different stance on moderation and language.

*moderator edit: please do not name other gaming platforms. You were warned about our policy in this thread and then defied the request, so will recieve a moderation penalty. It is clearly stated in our FAQ under "What guidelines should I follow when communicating?" that you should simply refer to 'on another gaming website' rather than naming them specifically.

[Meeplelowda]

Nah, I just assumed that * being used by pro chess players has a proper ELO system, just wasn't sure about it. Chess is quite an unforgiving game that filters out people who can't handle losing. * also has quite a different stance on moderation and language.

Using Elo/Glicko-like rating systems for chess and other abstract games is well-established for over-the-board play in those communities. So you would not expect that online versions of them would be any different. BGA decided to take a kinder, gentler approach, regardless of how silly it may seem to some people (myself included) used to Elo/Glicko. Also, Elo/Glicko was not designed for multi-player games, so they are already wedging a square peg into a round hole for that use case anyway.

[Stroom]

Using Elo/Glicko-like rating systems for chess and other abstract games is well-established for over-the-board play in those communities. So you would not expect that online versions of them would be any different. BGA decided to take a kinder, gentler approach, regardless of how silly it may seem to some people (myself included) used to Elo/Glicko. Also, Elo/Glicko was not designed for multi-player games, so they are already wedging a square peg into a round hole for that use case anyway.

Elo for multiplayer games is OK as it is. Nothing wrong with it. You calculate individual score diffs per player.

There are 2 ways to calculate it - either the winner just wins against each loser or each player gets a ranking and based on those 1st wins against all of them, 2nd wins against 3rd and 4th, 3rd wins against 4th. BGA uses the second way.

[Meeplelowda]

Using Elo/Glicko-like rating systems for chess and other abstract games is well-established for over-the-board play in those communities. So you would not expect that online versions of them would be any different. BGA decided to take a kinder, gentler approach, regardless of how silly it may seem to some people (myself included) used to Elo/Glicko. Also, Elo/Glicko was not designed for multi-player games, so they are already wedging a square peg into a round hole for that use case anyway.

Elo for multiplayer games is OK as it is. Nothing wrong with it. You calculate individual score diffs per player.

There are 2 ways to calculate it - either the winner just wins against each loser or each player gets a ranking and based on those 1st wins against all of them, 2nd wins against 3rd and 4th, 3rd wins against 4th. BGA uses the second way.

Of course, that's how it's implemented, but it's not what it's designed for. If it were actually designed for multi-player games, it would account for the estimated probability of finishing 2 out 3, or last out of 4, etc. When calculating rating change between 2nd and 3rd place finishers, they use exactly the same formula as if the 2nd and 3rd place player were playing a two-player game, which cannot possibly trend toward an equilibrium that estimates the actual probability of finishing *anywhere* above the 3rd place player, including 1st and 4th, 2nd and 4th, etc.

But it's good enough and better than nothing if you care about those kinds of things.

For the curious, here is a research paper detailing a proposal for an Elo system actually designed for multi-player contests.

Generalizing the Elo Rating System for Multiplayer Games and Races

Abstract: We introduce a non-standard generalization of the Elo rating system for competitions involving two or more participants. The new system can be understood as an on-line estimation algorithm for the parameters of a Plackett-Luce model which can be used to make probabilistic forecasts for the results of future competitions. ...

[ufm]

Notice how I said "Elo" instead of "ELO" - I'm not talking about BGA's version of matchmaking rating (which starts at 0, can't fall if below 100 and so on), but the actual Elo ranking system used in games like chess.

BGA used real ELO (starts at 1300, no bottom line) until 2016, then switched to the current system as players who lost a lot of rating while learning the game lost interest in the game itself very quickly as well.

Is this sarcasm? The problem is surely the same where some peoples' feelings do get hurt, it's just a matter of whether the site owners care. BGA decided to go one route and other sites went a different one

It's a popular chess site, not a pejorative. Censorship makes things weird. (facepalm)

[Stroom]

Of course, that's how it's implemented, but it's not what it's designed for. If it were actually designed for multi-player games, it would account for the estimated probability of finishing 2 out 3, or last out of 4, etc. When calculating rating change between 2nd and 3rd place finishers, they use exactly the same formula as if the 2nd and 3rd place player were playing a two-player game, which cannot possibly trend toward an equilibrium that estimates the actual probability of finishing *anywhere* above the 3rd place player, including 1st and 4th, 2nd and 4th, etc.

But it's good enough and better than nothing if you care about those kinds of things.

That is good enough. No need to overcomplicate things. There is no ideal metric to calculate a probability of winning as most board games have a randomness/luck factor.

If you take each pair of players and calculate each one's probability of winning over each other, and then add them all together, you will get a quite good final result about how much each player's elo should change after the game ends.

What actually should matter to me is only winning. So 2nd vs 3rd place is worthless. I'd change that only 1st player vs losers is the calculation.