Top 57 Players on Earth

[corvette1340]

By your logic on variance, the Fargorate list is better than anything else. The reason is, it counts "every single game" (that it has data for). Forget about a race to 5, or a race to 13. This list counts every game a player has ever played (again, for what it has data for). How can you not give mad props to something that does that?

I wasn't arguing against the Fargo list, I think it's the best rating system available. It's as much like the world golf rankings, which uses a rolling 2-year event system weighted for most recent play. I was simply stating to Chris that a lot of these guys don't understand that short races, especially alternate break, are little more than a toss up for the upper echelon guys with an extremely small sample size. Just like a top female beating male. It can happen in short races, but not in longer sets because the top males are so much better.

 

[real bartram]

I wasn't arguing against the Fargo list, I think it's the best rating system available. It's as much like the world golf rankings, which uses a rolling 2-year event system weighted for most recent play. I was simply stating to Chris that a lot of these guys don't understand that short races, especially alternate break, are little more than a toss up for the upper echelon guys with an extremely small sample size. Just like a top female beating male. It can happen in short races, but not in longer sets because the top males are so much better.

It's like having the best lpga player in the top 50 in the world .
There is a reason they have their own tour .

 

[SUPERSTAR]

You know me, I put my money where my mouth is. Check the action room when the US Open starts

But as far as the purpose of the list, you are a chess player. What is the purpose of the chess lists? Are they not a topic of conversation for the fans? How are they at predicting the outcome of two players? Do they add excitement to the game of chess? Sure, no list is god or absolute. But in any game, fans discussing "who is the best", from the local poolroom level, to national level, to the international level, is fun to do, and makes the game being discussed more interesting.

Edit to add, the other lists give way too much weighting to participation. So, the lists became pretty much useless. Take that to an extreme, in our local events, Jose made the Mezz tour years ago give points for participation in the event. And the more you did in succession, the higher the points you were awarded per event. I could have been "player of the year" on his tour as a C player if I simply went to every event, beating out all the legit top players.

It's basically the same method of analysis.
I would bet it is used in the exact same way. Plenty are other sports that use the same formula.
Just chess has been using it longer and is far more in depth then pool.
The difference is that ALL chess tournaments are added into the database. Every player has a rating that is determined. And you really can't be a chess player without actually having an established ELO.
It is used to determine rankings but unlike what some people and their thoughts about Fargo, it simply REFLECTS how good a player is playing at the moment.
That whole who is supposed to win prediction thing is just a crock when you have people evenly matched.
That's my whole point. It's good at telling you who is supposed to win when there is a points gap. But most good handicappers can do that without a list based on observation and some knowledge.

Fargo might be a good tool for major events, but it won't be legitimate until it encompasses ALL data down to the local level.

Trust me, chess fans don't blow their loads at the thought of one chess player having a higher rating then another.
On the other hand, pool fans blow their loads at absolutely everything.

Chess fans just want to see brilliancy or a new novelty or just solid chess. They could care less about who is supposed to win over someone else because they know ELO has it's limitations and that higher rated players get beat by players beneath them all the time.

Also, in chess you have "draws"
That is simply not a component of pool, and further separates the 2 because in chess, drawing can also earn you points if you draw against someone that is supposed to slaughter you.

As for your last point, participation is not skill. I agree.
Participation should only be a factor to try and protect certain tournaments. Although I don't know of any increasing/weighted points for participating, and if there were, I would assume that differences might occur because of different size fields. Perhaps making a destinction between fields of 32 vs 70+ And what going 2 and out is valued in each. But I don't keep tabs on that, so I have no idea.
But anyway, rewarding participation should only be in terms of qualifying.
Just like some regional tours don't want strangers to come in and snap off the year end event that has the most money added, without participating all season, while the money taken out of each entry fee that went to those year end finals came from people that slaved away at all the events prior.
That's why those minimums. Must play in 3, or must play in 5 events to qualify for the year end final came into place.
To stop the cherry picking good players, trying to take a cheap shot.
But most tours sold out and dropped that crap down to 1 or 2 cause they wanted to see higher numbers at their year end finals, and said heck with the regular players.

Imagine if Joss had a minimum "must play in 7 season events" to be eligible for turning stone.
That would be protecting the regulars on the tour, while rewarding them for their participation. Back in the day, that was what the whole play in 3 events/lower entry fee was about. Cut the regulars a discount for supporting the tour.
But that didn't matter. The pros still all showed up to make a quick buck.
And Turning Stone has since morphed into so much more.
But the old school in me would still like to see the players supporting the tour, even the tomato can fillers, being rewarded for donating every event.
That's what participation should be about.
Protecting your customers.

 

[iusedtoberich]

It's like having the best lpga player in the top 50 in the world .
There is a reason they have their own tour .

I don't think anyone is arguing the top men are significantly better than the top women.

But, there comes a skill level point where the top women are better than the mediocre men. Whether this is at Skylar, or further down the line, is a good debate.

The one thing about Skylar in particular, is IMO, he has been on a steady improvement for the past couple of years. So his Fargorate might not reflect his current level in the best way possible. For a player on a rapid move, either up due to youth (like Skylar), or down due to old age (like Efren), the Fargorate will lag behind slightly.

The other thing about this particular comparison, of Siming Chen vs Skylar, is that the women are not "as well coupled" to the men in the Fargo system as the women are to each other. Simply because few women participate in the men's events. Of the ones that participate regularly, we have Karen Corr, Jennifer Barretta, Jasmin, and maybe a handful of others. So there is less data that couples the women to the men, compared to coupling the men to the men, and the women to the women.

I think over time, the system will get better and better.

 

[real bartram]

I don't think anyone is arguing the top men are significantly better than the top women.

But, there comes a skill level point where the top women are better than the mediocre men. Whether this is at Skylar, or further down the line, is a good debate.

The one thing about Skylar in particular, is IMO, he has been on a steady improvement for the past couple of years. So his Fargorate might not reflect his current level in the best way possible. For a player on a rapid move, either up due to youth (like Skylar), or down due to old age (like Efren), the Fargorate will lag behind slightly.

The other thing about this particular comparison, of Siming Chen vs Skylar, is that the women are not "as well coupled" to the men in the Fargo system as the women are to each other. Simply because few women participate in the men's events. Of the ones that participate regularly, we have Karen Corr, Jennifer Barretta, Jasmin, and maybe a handful of others. So there is less data that couples the women to the men, compared to coupling the men to the men, and the women to the women.

I think over time, the system will get better and better.

No system is perfect .
There are a lot of men who play under sky that the top women can't beat in a long match.
There are a lot of good women players
But let's not try to fool people there are apt more then 50 men
That the top women can't beat in a long match .

 

[one stroke]

You know me, I put my money where my mouth is. Check the action room when the US Open starts

But as far as the purpose of the list, you are a chess player. What is the purpose of the chess lists? Are they not a topic of conversation for the fans? How are they at predicting the outcome of two players? Do they add excitement to the game of chess? Sure, no list is god or absolute. But in any game, fans discussing "who is the best", from the local poolroom level, to national level, to the international level, is fun to do, and makes the game being discussed more interesting.

Edit to add, the other lists give way too much weighting to participation. So, the lists became pretty much useless. Take that to an extreme, in our local events, Jose made the Mezz tour years ago give points for participation in the event. And the more you did in succession, the higher the points you were awarded per event. I could have been "player of the year" on his tour as a C player if I simply went to every event, beating out all the legit top players.

Hope you didn't have Wu and Shane over Ko or MD over Ko2 for starters

1

 

[one stroke]

Chris, a lot of these idiots in here don't get the short race vs longer race concept in that it will identify the better player. They don't understand variance and think a short race, alternate break tourney like the world 9-ball determines who the best player is. They also think that a lot of these foreign clowns are better than SVB in rotation games, lol

Funny how the guy who has won 2 of those is the same guy that blew right by Shane in a race to 21. Oh that's right it wasn't a race to 100 so that doesn't count

Ko is the favorit against Shane in any game except 1 pocket regardless of length , and the longer it is the more he is favored

1

 

[real bartram]

Funny how the guy who has won 2 of those is the same guy that blew right by Shane in a race to 21. Oh that's right it wasn't a race to 100 so that doesn't count

Ko is the favorit against Shane in any game except 1 pocket regardless of length , and the longer it is the more he is favored

1

10 ball they are close
1 pocket Svb
Banks Svb not close

 

[mikepage]

[...]

The one thing about Skylar in particular, is IMO, he has been on a steady improvement for the past couple of years. So his Fargorate might not reflect his current level in the best way possible. For a player on a rapid move, either up due to youth (like Skylar), or down due to old age (like Efren), the Fargorate will lag behind slightly.

Interesting that you say this, because all our 1621 games for Skylar are from the last year and a half, starting Reno 2014. That is I think starting when he was 21.

For Siming Chen, on the other hand, who is 21 now, her 971 games are spread pretty evenly from age 15 to age 21.

The other thing about this particular comparison, of Siming Chen vs Skylar, is that the women are not "as well coupled" to the men in the Fargo system as the women are to each other. Simply because few women participate in the men's events. Of the ones that participate regularly, we have Karen Corr, Jennifer Barretta, Jasmin, and maybe a handful of others. So there is less data that couples the women to the men, compared to coupling the men to the men, and the women to the women.

I think over time, the system will get better and better.

Yes, we are always interested in getting more matches between men and women for this reason. Here is Siming's record against several well known players

Siming 18 Karen Corr 10
Siming 18 Alison Fischer 12
Siming 16 Jasmin Ouschan 6
Siming 18 Monica Webb 11
Siming 9 Jennette Lee 6
Siming 7 Vivian Villareal 2
Siming 16 Ewa Lawrence 3

These are spread from age 15 to 21.

So against Karen, Allison, and Jasmin, her record is 52 to 28. And this similar level of performance continues against other opponents. This is about how Skylar would be expected to perform against these opponents.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Interesting that you say this, because all our 1621 games for Skylar are from the last year and a half, starting Reno 2014. That is I think starting when he was 21.

For Siming Chen, on the other hand, who is 21 now, her 971 games are spread pretty evenly from age 15 to age 21.





Yes, we are always interested in getting more matches between men and women for this reason. Here is Siming's record against several well known players

Siming 18 Karen Corr 10
Siming 18 Alison Fischer 12
Siming 16 Jasmin Ouschan 6
Siming 18 Monica Webb 11
Siming 9 Jennette Lee 6
Siming 7 Vivian Villareal 2
Siming 16 Ewa Lawrence 3

These are spread from age 15 to 21.

So against Karen, Allison, and Jasmin, her record is 52 to 28. And this similar level of performance continues against other opponents. This is about how Skylar would be expected to perform against these opponents.

Thanks for the further info, and taking the time to respond.

As the database grows, do you think it would be possible to track player improvement/declines over time? Maybe there could be a player trend graph, once ratings are more established?

That could also help show how long it takes to be a pro. For example, if your database went back 10 years, Skylar was running around at DCC and the Hopkins Expo, but certainly not a top player at the time. If the Fargo ratings had been in place then, we could have watched his performance changing over time. Just food for thought. I think having all the games in a database as you are working on, can lead to so many different ways to use that data. I hope you release some sort of bracket software technology, make it free to every promoter (so it is widespread), and have it report automatically right to your database.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Also, if a player takes off for a period of time, and then comes back, how exactly is their rating determined?
For instance, someone stops playing to tend to an ill family member, then they come back.
How would their return rating be determined when they come back?
So imagine #1 on the list leaves, and comes back 2 years later.
Where would they be considering they are still a worldbeater?

 

[iusedtoberich]

Also, if a player takes off for a period of time, and then comes back, how exactly is their rating determined?
For instance, someone stops playing to tend to an ill family member, then they come back.
How would their return rating be determined when they come back?
So imagine #1 on the list leaves, and comes back 2 years later.
Where would they be considering they are still a worldbeater?

I read through the entire Elo page for the chess ratings a month or so back, and this is one negative aspect of the system. They called it "babysitting" I recall, where some of the top players don't play, to maintain their rating.

I don't know how Fargorate specifically addresses this, but Mike has said in the past that newer games are worth more than older games.

Another potential negative element of the chess Elo system is that a player from the year 1990 with lets say a 2500 rating is not equivalent to a player in the year 2015 with the same 2500 rating. Because the total number of points in the system can inflate (like money). So, the same will probably happen with the Fargorate, making comparisons across generations difficult.

 

[railbird99]

It's basically the same method of analysis.
I would bet it is used in the exact same way. Plenty are other sports that use the same formula.
Just chess has been using it longer and is far more in depth then pool.
The difference is that ALL chess tournaments are added into the database. Every player has a rating that is determined. And you really can't be a chess player without actually having an established ELO.
It is used to determine rankings but unlike what some people and their thoughts about Fargo, it simply REFLECTS how good a player is playing at the moment.
That whole who is supposed to win prediction thing is just a crock when you have people evenly matched.
That's my whole point. It's good at telling you who is supposed to win when there is a points gap. But most good handicappers can do that without a list based on observation and some knowledge.

Fargo might be a good tool for major events, but it won't be legitimate until it encompasses ALL data down to the local level.

Trust me, chess fans don't blow their loads at the thought of one chess player having a higher rating then another.
On the other hand, pool fans blow their loads at absolutely everything.

Chess fans just want to see brilliancy or a new novelty or just solid chess. They could care less about who is supposed to win over someone else because they know ELO has it's limitations and that higher rated players get beat by players beneath them all the time.

Also, in chess you have "draws"
That is simply not a component of pool, and further separates the 2 because in chess, drawing can also earn you points if you draw against someone that is supposed to slaughter you.

As for your last point, participation is not skill. I agree.
Participation should only be a factor to try and protect certain tournaments. Although I don't know of any increasing/weighted points for participating, and if there were, I would assume that differences might occur because of different size fields. Perhaps making a destinction between fields of 32 vs 70+ And what going 2 and out is valued in each. But I don't keep tabs on that, so I have no idea.
But anyway, rewarding participation should only be in terms of qualifying.
Just like some regional tours don't want strangers to come in and snap off the year end event that has the most money added, without participating all season, while the money taken out of each entry fee that went to those year end finals came from people that slaved away at all the events prior.
That's why those minimums. Must play in 3, or must play in 5 events to qualify for the year end final came into place.
To stop the cherry picking good players, trying to take a cheap shot.
But most tours sold out and dropped that crap down to 1 or 2 cause they wanted to see higher numbers at their year end finals, and said heck with the regular players.

Imagine if Joss had a minimum "must play in 7 season events" to be eligible for turning stone.
That would be protecting the regulars on the tour, while rewarding them for their participation. Back in the day, that was what the whole play in 3 events/lower entry fee was about. Cut the regulars a discount for supporting the tour.
But that didn't matter. The pros still all showed up to make a quick buck.
And Turning Stone has since morphed into so much more.
But the old school in me would still like to see the players supporting the tour, even the tomato can fillers, being rewarded for donating every event.
That's what participation should be about.
Protecting your customers.

Completely disagree. Chess fans and chess players definitely take into account and live by ELO ratings. That's their single number to track their progress and tell who the better players are. Most of the best players in the world, including Magnus care more about being the highest rated player than being world champion. Also, only tournamants that are official FIDE rated tournaments affect your FIDE rating. So this rating is not even close to complete, but it is still the most important rating for a player.

There's no reason it can't be the same thing in pool. Yes when two players are very close in rating, it's hard to predict who will win, but that's not because of the rating system, that's because they are so close in skill level no system can tell you who's going to win with any certainty. At least with an ELO system you can see just how close the players are.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Perfect example would be Gata Kamsky.
Was a top player.
World Championship chess contender.
Dropped off the planet for 8 years and went to law school.
Showed up back on the scene and picked up right where he left off as one of the top players in the country and the world, jockeying for position to world championships, like every other top player.

I don't know how they do it in chess to determine that your are still world class after a layoff. I guess once world class, always...kinda world class.
In pool I would think it's much harder as you have to practice, and drops and increases in ones game are exponential, and not in terms of "baby steps"

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Completely disagree. Chess fans and chess players definitely take into account and live by ELO ratings. That's their single number to track their progress and tell who the better players are. Most of the best players in the world, including Magnus care more about being the highest rated player than being world champion. Also, only tournamants that are official FIDE rated tournaments affect your FIDE rating. So this rating is not even close to complete, but it is still the most important rating for a player.

There's no reason it can't be the same thing in pool. Yes when two players are very close in rating, it's hard to predict who will win, but that's not because of the rating system, that's because they are so close in skill level no system can tell you who's going to win with any certainty. At least with an ELO system you can see just how close the players are.

Chess fans are not chess players, and chess fans do not gets all soft inside like pool fans do.
Chess players wanting to be the highest rated player on earth is a different story altogether.

 

[spartan]

Perfect example would be Gata Kamsky.
Was a top player.
World Championship chess contender.
Dropped off the planet for 8 years and went to law school.
Showed up back on the scene and picked up right where he left off as one of the top players in the country and the world, jockeying for position to world championships, like every other top player.

I don't know how they do it in chess to determine that your are still world class after a layoff. I guess once world class, always...kinda world class.
In pool I would think it's much harder as you have to practice, and drops and increases in ones game are exponential, and not in terms of "baby steps"

Chess is different ball game. Probably the most perfect game as there is little luck in chess. You may lose because you are fatigued or nervous but seldom because of luck.
Which is probably why the ELO ratings in chess are pretty accurate of player's skill level. :grin:

 

[iusedtoberich]

Perfect example would be Gata Kamsky.
Was a top player.
World Championship chess contender.
Dropped off the planet for 8 years and went to law school.
Showed up back on the scene and picked up right where he left off as one of the top players in the country and the world, jockeying for position to world championships, like every other top player.

I don't know how they do it in chess to determine that your are still world class after a layoff. I guess once world class, always...kinda world class.
In pool I would think it's much harder as you have to practice, and drops and increases in ones game are exponential, and not in terms of "baby steps"

IDK... In pool we have similar examples of players going on 5 year "vacations" and they come back about where they were before. I don't think its as dramatic as you make it. We have all taken long breaks from the game on the local level, and with a month or two of practice, are about where we were before.

I think the performance decline in pool is mostly due to age, rather than active playing. Take Daulton as one example. He pretty much quit competing on the pro tour (or pro events since the tour folded up) 10 years ago, when he started running his own regional tour. I think the only event he plays in is pretty much the DCC during this time period. Yet, he still does jam up in the banks and one pocket divisions, his forte.

 

[railbird99]

Chess fans are not chess players, and chess fans do not gets all soft inside like pool fans do.
Chess players wanting to be the highest rated player on earth is a different story altogether.

Are you attempting to speak for all chess fans and pool fans, including me? That's just a tad bit stereotypical and arrogant, is it not?

If a chess player cares about being the highest rated player on earth, then that gives credibility to the rating, otherwise why would he care?

 

[railbird99]

Chess is different ball game. Probably the most perfect game as there is little luck in chess. You may lose because you are fatigued or nervous but seldom because of luck.
Which is probably why the ELO ratings in chess are pretty accurate of player's skill level. :grin:

I don't see how it's different. I'm not going to beat Shane, even with all the luck in the world. A worse player may beat a better player in one set because of luck, but over time that's going to have a negligible impact on ratings. Even in poker, luck is canceled out over time, and the better players rise to the top.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

Are you attempting to speak for all chess fans and pool fans, including me? That's just a tad bit stereotypical and arrogant, is it not?

I used to go watch the World Open back in the day when the event was held at the Adam's Mark Hotel in Philadelphia. Iv'e seen more then my fair share of chess fans.
Sure, you have some that are eating sleeping and breathing chess, but those are more the outliers, then the center of the bell curve.

Sorry. That's just my observation.
If it disagrees with yours, that's fine.
No big deal.