The Kleier System Simply doesnt Work

[psychicwarrior]

I would like to call for a new rating system as the current Kleier system is simply inadequate. It doesn’t reflect accurately a players level and is strongly skewed towards those who have played fewer games.

Gravon is a great site, and I believe needs a great rating system to go with it.

Let’s look at other rating systems. Take for example the model used in Chess, which is obviously universal and could only achieve that status by having a valid rating system. In Chess, when a player wins against an equally rated opponent, his rating goes up 15 points. Against a vastly superior opponent, a max of 25 points and against a vastly inferior opponent, a minimum of 10 pts. This accomplishes 2 things, gives the player immediate feedback on his/her rating and accurately reflects their most recent level of play.

For example, if a player played 20 games, and lost the 1st ten and won the 2nd ten, their rating would be much higher than if the won and lost every other game and accurately so as if a player wins ten games in a row.. they are clearly playing in superior form and the rating should reflect that,

In any case a victory or defeat shows an immediate and predictable change in rating.

Take the example in the Kleier system which is based on % of wins ..and thus the more games you play, the lower each game counts in a rating, thus it inaccurately reflects a players most recent play and in effect penalizes players who play many games.

Take the most recent example extrapolated of say 1000 games. If a player, under the Kleier systetm loses all of his 1st 500 games, then proceeds to improve and win the next 500 in a row, the Kleier system shows his % of wins to be 50% and the player would be rated somewhere in the “middle” of player rankings. In chess, however, he would be rated amongst the top as he should be, winning 500 games in a row.

This the Kleier system in effect penalizes player who play often, as their wins mean less… and doesn’t accurately reflect the level of skill of a player but simply a statistical qualitative evaluation that is almost meaningless after a number of games have been played.

It is no wonder that in the Gravon Stratego rankings, most of the top players have played far fewer games.

In my case, specifically, having played over 1600 games, If I win 100 games in a row, against higher ranked players, my rating only improves marginally and I still would be somewhere in the middle of the pack. Contrast that with Chess, and my ranking would be amongst the top players as it should be for winning so often.

Thus I ask those in charge at the great site of Gravon to implement a rating system that reflects and responds to both the levels and improvements of its players.

Thank you.

Edfx

[acerimmer]

PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE!

There is too much impatience with you guys!
Klier gives accurate figures for players strength versus other opponents!

You will get to your correct playing strength in time!

If you were pants for the first 500 games then suddenly improved to a superior playing standard for your next 500 games........yes you would be somewhere in between how good you were for the first 500 games and the second 500 games. And your real playing strength will not be truely represented. Not at the present time anyway!

But that is why we have klier 2005.......which in my opinion gives the BEST show of players strength!
We all start from the same point in January and play a year, this gives us a damn fine show of players strength for that period in time.

I have been watching my own personal klier ranking for 2005 and have seen no great variation for the last 6 or 7 months.......my klier ranking has gone up and down from 1625 to 1645 for this period......and has been often around 1635.
Thus giving me a good idea of my true strength!

Maybe it will be higher or lower for 2006?

But unless i improve or get worse......I expect it to be a similar figure for 2006!

What you suggested about playing a system where you receive minimum of 10points for winning against a poor player and maximum 25points for beating a brilliant player.....would show you NO ACCURATE idea of who is a good player and bad player!
Take this example......what if a low player played my 6 year old son and beat him 10 games in a row......EVERY DAY for 2 months.....and he only played my 6year old son.....and noone else!
This would make him probably the best player on Gravon (according to your system) .....this would clearly be wrong and make this system totally inacurate!
You are ranked on klier 2005 with maybe a 1 or 2% margin of error roughly where you should be!!!!!
You are as good as your ranking!

These people who moan ......blah blah blah.......klier is bad because I am great player and only ranked 200th or whatever.......really piss me off!

If your ranked 200th or 40th or whatever....thats because you are that good and NO BETTER.

If I am wrong then prove it to me and everyone else by being up there with the best players by the end of 2006!

Klier is the best system and the only people who do not like this system are the people who forget how to tick the UNRANKED button when they play games and lose!

You lose for a reason.....maybe your not that good!

Stop moaning and play the game......Unranked if you wish not to lose and it effect your ranking!

Lets face it...........you guys dont lose many points losing to good players........its when you lose to the poor players when you really effect your ranking!!!!!!!!!!!
And if you lose to poor players then, maybe you are not quite as good as you thought you were!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[psychicwarrior]

There system has been in play for 1000's of years... with much evolution to show and reflect the better way to rate a player. No system is perfect..yet the Kleier, as you see many comments here... is terrible and not reflective..I could start wit a new name and win 15 of my 1st 20 games and be in the top30 players.. Thats why many players try to do this.

Kleier's rating system needs to go and fast !

[acerimmer]

Well maybe I should repeat myself again!

Why dont you play unranked.....that way especially when your not a good player....you dont get too far behind!

Then when your brilliant....play ranked!

simple!

The only way that system could possibly work is if the rankings were split into mini leagues!
Say top 40 in premier league!
41-80 in 1st division
81-120 in 2nd division
etc

This way someone who is ranked say....100th could not choose to play someone who is ranked 250th EVERY DAY......thus making this person the best player on Gravon!

We have a system already in place.....that is similar to your proposed system......it is called WSC.

Your system would only encourage one thing.......people avoiding good players and concentrating on playing poor players!!!!!

[acerimmer]

Following on from your last point edfx......about players starting new accounts to get a better ranking.......ONE FEATURE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.......would be the ranking of new players increased from 20 games, before gaining a ranking......up to 100 games!

20 games does not really give a totally accurate figure!

playing 100 games should give a accurate klier rating!

These players who play 20 games to get a ranking then.....they play only once or twice a month after that, should not be ranked in the rankings.....only after 100 games has been played showed the ranking by classed as accurate.

Only an idea...but if you want a accurate system....this would help!

Maybe it could be reduced for 2006 klier ....as people might not have the time to play 100 games.....maybe 40 games before getting ranked and increase the monthly games from 1 or 2 games per month to a minimum of 5 per month......until 100 games have been played!

What do you think?

If you want accuracy....I think this idea or something similar would help!

[esquire]

I agree with you AceRimmer. Let's make it 40 games.

And as for Kleir, it is not the best-but it is fine. Go by WSC if you want to see you current ratings among other current players.

And Edfx, sait until 2006, then you will see how much you improved. I seriously doubt it will change as drastically as you may.

[art]

From the lotto posts the word is out to put all your bombs in high spots when playing Ed. But don't jump to quick you all, its a psyche job designed to get everyone to do just that, so he can run his marshall thru your back row in the first 3 minutes of the game.

[jerry]

Works well, in certain scenarios..must exsplain the bad war record for 2005..

Jerry.

[spion]

Hi edfx,

i don't know where you took "your" system from, but "the model used in chess" is called ELO. There may be other models but ELO is the one system used by serious chess players.

A good explanation of the ELO system can be found here:
http://chess.about.com/library/weekly/aa03a25.htm

If you look at the ELO system, you'll notice that you don't necassarily get points by winning. ELO is very similar to Kleier's rating system. Once your rating has stabilized, it will not vary much over time, like with the Kleier system.

The system you suggested does not show playing strength but honors players who play a lot. And additionally it will make people playing only newbies or weak players because it's a lot easier to win against a weak player 3 times (giving 30 points) than winning once against a inferior opponent (giving only 25 points).

Best regards
spion

[-deleted260]

OK...first of all...EDFX...no system in the world will help you any....your LOW LEVEL game has reached an all time LOW. Your game stinks...you will never get any better no matter what system Gravon uses. The LEGENDARY spion and his associates run this site....and there is a reason why this site is the best ....if there is a better system out there...spion and his team will find it!!!!!....TAKE UP MONOPOLY OR SOMETHING AND GO AWAY!!!!!. Leave BIG TIME stratego to the real men
_________________
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled... was convincing people he did not exist..

[esquire]

I think edfx's game is more suitable for the game "Hungry Hungry Hippos."

I bet he would rank high in that game.


For anyone that does not know the game, go here:

http://www.hasbro.com/preschoolgames/content/HHH_game.cfm

[darthremark]

The big weakness of Kleier is that it takes a lot of games to get accurate. And after you have a few games watching for movement in it is as exciting as watching the grass grow. But it is an accepted standard and a very good gauge of relative strength. If enough players want it then maybe Spion could set up the system you propose in parallel, like the WSC and the yearly Kleier are now. Anything to keep players competing is a good idea. There is no reason to undo what we have in place though.

I don't think the system you described would be accurate at all. Maybe Spion could add the ELO?