What is Kazakis' rating after this event?
Filler destroyed most everyone after losing to SVB in first round.
His rating is very close to those around him. Changes of a single point or so can make a difference in the ranking order. I think there is no problem.The fact that Dechaine has gone up a couple spots since retiring is a problem for presenting this as a pro ranking. I understand that this measures who you've won vs. lost to, and that (apparently) Dechaine has played well in the couple events he's played in recent months. But it's misleading as presented.
The fact that Dechaine has gone up a couple spots since retiring is a problem for presenting this as a pro ranking. I understand that this measures who you've won vs. lost to, and that (apparently) Dechaine has played well in the couple events he's played in recent months. But it's misleading as presented.
In the case of the UMB and the 3 cushion world ranking, "participation points" are very important for tournament organization and the players. The top twelve ranked players get travel expenses and some prize money at each ranking event. If they want to stay in the top twelve, they have to show up at events, even when those events are in Portugal, Egypt, or Ho Chi Minh City. That makes the organizers willing to put in the huge effort to produce an event.... I can understand a particular organization wanting to have its own rankings that give participation points --extra credit for showing up. A ranking like that is fine; it's just a different animal.
Out curiosity, when you have two players with the same rating, like Shaw and Wu, what makes one higher on your list (as opposed to tied for 2nd, for example)? Is it based on decimals we don't see?
Just a hypothetical question. If a player went on a tear and beat literally everyone that they played and gave up ZERO games to any of their opponents, is the highest rating that they could achieve (a perfect player) = 1000 Fargo Rating?
Do the recent money matches (Alcano, Aranas and Corteza) that KaCi won go towards his rating?
Yes, decimals.
Out curiosity, when you have two players with the same rating, like Shaw and Wu, what makes one higher on your list (as opposed to tied for 2nd, for example)? Is it based on decimals we don't see?
Yes, decimals.
No. there is no top and no bottom.
His rating is very close to those around him. Changes of a single point or so can make a difference in the ranking order. I think there is no problem.
I don't see a problem here. His performance in the last year has actually moved him up. That's real.
I can understand a particular organization wanting to have its own rankings that give participation points --extra credit for showing up. A ranking like that is fine; it's just a different animal.
I understand what you're both saying. The reason I say it's misleading is that all pro sports use rankings, and none would show a rank increase for player who retired to only playing in a couple of nearby tournaments. Not to mention a team that didn't play that season. They're all win-loss records or maybe money leader boards. I'm sure Elo ratings are available for all sports, but only the real sports nerds would know them.
The fact that there is no pro pool tour means that there is no ranking of the normal type. But when the Fargo ratings are presented as "pro rankings" people are going to interpret them like the normal ratings rather than the sports nerd ratings.
I'm not so sure there is such a clear normal. We have a very weak "currency" requirement --the player must have played 150 games in the last two years.
If a 5000 meter runner logs a good time early in the spring in California and then just skips the summer European Track Circuit, his early spring time still counts on the 2018 performance rankings and in fact he can top the list at the end of the summer. That's an absolute measure that doesn't need to be averaged.
For rankings of absolute measures that do need to be averaged (golf, bowling, batting), I think there is generally a requirement of minimum activity to be included in official rankings.
In chess (FIDE) I think you are considered inactive if you don't play at least one rated game per year. Our "active" measure is weak like that. There are good players on our list who basically only play in Eurotour events or pretty much only in Asia or pretty much only the US.
Dechaine has five events, 320 games, logged into our system from the last 10 months. Two of those events (SBE Pro 10-Ball and Gotham City Classic) had multiple top-100 players. In fact Dechaine played 3 matches against players rated over 800 --won them all. He played another four matches against other players in the top 100 --won them too. He won all his matches in these two tournaments.