|
So lately I have been seeing lots of threads and posts about how/why/who/what/where/when/how the ladder system is/could be/should be, and I got to wondering how the current Blizzard system could be compared to another ranking system we use. I was surfing sc2ranks.com and saw that the top 100 players ranged in the 1850-2100 range and were very close to one another in terms of points, then I remembered the post made by Saracen about ranks and saw that his point range was quite accurate from my point of view. So then I thought some more about this could be compared to another ranking system we use and came up with the thought of chess.
In chess you pretty much start at 800 points, this is your "rank" on a player level scale, the more points you have the "better" you are, now this is a slippery road just like the SC2 ladder right now because anyone can mass game and certain players can beat other players, etc etc we've had hundreds of posts and threads about this, but the comparison is the same in terms of the points.
Pretty much anyone with less then 800 points in chess is considered a "noob" or "scrub" and generally only knows a few basic things, such as moving the pieces correctly and maybe a opening like queen bishop and can only think of 1-2 moves ahead. Same apply's to SC2 with people around 800 Diamond rank, they know some basic things like scouting after gateway, know what all the units are and how to get them and can pull off a 4gate or a simple build like that.
Now if you have over 2000 points in chess you are considered a master though anyone with over 1200 is considered good and knows what their doing. Generally can think up to 3-4 moves ahead without much difficulty. If we compare this to SC2 we see that we have some very big names in the top 1850 such as Huk, SeleCT, oGsZenio, David Kim, Fenix, Tarson, qxc, ilOveOOv... just to name a few that I'm sure everyone knows. Many of these players we consider gosu, or masters in SC2 have the same ratio as extremely good chess players which is around 1800+
Though this wont last long, as I'm sure if Blizzard doesn't reset the ladder soon people will break 3k by November, I just thought it was something interesting to compare with.
...Plus I cant log on b.net for some reason and I'm REALLY bored... 
|
Not sure where this topic is going, but:
1200 USCF is as good as you would expect an average smart 10-year-old to be after playing chess seriously for about a year. If you want to consider that good, be my guest, but that's like considering a D+ iCCup player good because they squish people who only play BGH.
I think that the USCF class system translates pretty well to iCCup ranks: 1200+ is D, 1400+ is C, 1600+ is B, 1800+ is A. There's a lot of extra room above that in chess, because there's a lot of people who have been playing chess for decades, building off of the accumulated wisdom of 200+ years of play, or who started when they were eight years old and played full-time since then. (I'm about 2080, and there are thousands of people in the US alone who are higher rated than me.) You don't have people who are that good at SC.
The cutoff for the USCF master title is 2200, not 2000. (FIDE is 2300.)
|
Elitist much?
D+ is actually quite good. In a crowd like TL a lot of people like to take a shit on anyone who isn't EXTREMELY good, but the fact of the matter is D+ ICCUP is quite difficult to obtain for the average person.
|
On September 30 2010 05:20 telfire wrote:
Elitist much?
D+ is actually quite good. In a crowd like TL a lot of people like to take a shit on anyone who isn't EXTREMELY good, but the fact of the matter is D+ ICCUP is quite difficult to obtain for the average person.
I agree, I don't understand why everyone on TL seems to act like they are all A+ ICCUP players when we all know that maybe only 10-15% actually are or were.
|
I really hate the laddering points system in SC2. The bonus pool just means everyone will be increasing in points every day and there's no constant frame of reference. I hate it.
|
On September 30 2010 05:29 SichuanPanda wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 05:20 telfire wrote:
Elitist much?
D+ is actually quite good. In a crowd like TL a lot of people like to take a shit on anyone who isn't EXTREMELY good, but the fact of the matter is D+ ICCUP is quite difficult to obtain for the average person. I agree, I don't understand why everyone on TL seems to act like they are all A+ ICCUP players when we all know that maybe only 10-15% actually are or were.
Do you know how hard it was to reach A? More like 1%.
|
On September 30 2010 05:20 telfire wrote:
Elitist much?
D+ is actually quite good. In a crowd like TL a lot of people like to take a shit on anyone who isn't EXTREMELY good, but the fact of the matter is D+ ICCUP is quite difficult to obtain for the average person.
just because it's difficult to obtain doesn't mean that a D+ iccup player isn't still bad. no one looks down on someone who's happy they made D+, because everyone knows how hard it was when you start out and how incredibly difficult it actually is to make that rank. from what i've seen TL only shits on people who think D+ is actually any good.
|
Most importantly in the comparison is the actual rating system though. The ELO system in chess is a phenomenal way to rate players, and I've heard rumor that Blizzard uses the ELO system behind the scenes to determine things like ladder matchups and promotion.
This would surely be a more accurate way to determine ratings, and less likely to see the kind of inflation that the bonus system introduces into the points economy.
|
I wanted blizzard to ELO ranking system and not the weird thing they're using now :/. At least ELO is reliable lol.
And D+ is good. Sure, anyone who played on iccup a few months and try to get better should be at least C-/C but D+ players do have good basics ;-).
|
I don't like a ranking system where good players are D students :p
It's like, lets give everyone in the class a D because the asian kid (lets say Jaedong) scored 40 points higher than everyone else.
|
I really don't think you can compare the two. Rating inflation in SC2 is much more rampant than in chess. Every day you get a bonus pool of 12. Within a year, that's 4380. Very roughly speaking, you get this for "free", just by going 50/50. Although in the beta, they briefly used ELO which is also used in chess and the ratings now somewhat resemble chess ratings, in the future they won't. Maybe they'll change the rate at which the bonus pool increases in the future.
Chess Ratings are broken down:
2200+ master (grandmasters aren't done by rating points explicitly but they are typically start around 2500-2600)
2000-2200 Expert
1800-2000 Class A
1600-1800 Class B
1400-1600 Class C
1200-1400 Class D
Under 1200 Novices
There are 1192 Grandmasters in the world. There are 60 from the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/spo_che_gra-sports-chess-grandmasters
To put that in perspective there are about 83,000 members of the US Chess Federation.
According to this source, http://www.sizes.com/sports/chess_ratings.htm ,you can find the percentiles for chess ratings. Masters being in the top 2-3% of US Chess players.
|
On September 30 2010 05:35 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 05:29 SichuanPanda wrote:On September 30 2010 05:20 telfire wrote:
Elitist much?
D+ is actually quite good. In a crowd like TL a lot of people like to take a shit on anyone who isn't EXTREMELY good, but the fact of the matter is D+ ICCUP is quite difficult to obtain for the average person. I agree, I don't understand why everyone on TL seems to act like they are all A+ ICCUP players when we all know that maybe only 10-15% actually are or were. Do you know how hard it was to reach A? More like 1%.
There are only 26 on this forum I can think of, out of what, half a million members? So .00005%; not even close to 1%.
|
On September 30 2010 06:05 Lazy_Peasant wrote:Chess Ratings are broken down: 2200+ master (grandmasters aren't done by rating points explicitly but they are typically start around 2500-2600) 2000-2200 Expert 1800-2000 Class A 1600-1800 Class B 1400-1600 Class C 1200-1400 Class D Under 1200 Novices There are 1192 Grandmasters in the world. There are 60 from the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/spo_che_gra-sports-chess-grandmastersTo put that in perspective there are about 83,000 members of the US Chess Federation. According to this source, http://www.sizes.com/sports/chess_ratings.htm ,you can find the percentiles for chess ratings. Masters being in the top 2-3% of US Chess players.
Remember, that's the top 2-3% of rated USCF members, not the top 2-3% of U.S. players. That is, the top 2-3% of actively competing tournament players who are paying $50 a year for a membership. More elite than it sounds.
|
Id really take ICCup ranks over what we currently have x_x. With bonus pool its really hard for ranks to mean anything about your actual skill level.
|
On September 30 2010 06:45 forgotten0ne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 05:35 Nagano wrote:On September 30 2010 05:29 SichuanPanda wrote:On September 30 2010 05:20 telfire wrote:
Elitist much?
D+ is actually quite good. In a crowd like TL a lot of people like to take a shit on anyone who isn't EXTREMELY good, but the fact of the matter is D+ ICCUP is quite difficult to obtain for the average person. I agree, I don't understand why everyone on TL seems to act like they are all A+ ICCUP players when we all know that maybe only 10-15% actually are or were. Do you know how hard it was to reach A? More like 1%. There are only 26 on this forum I can think of, out of what, half a million members? So .00005%; not even close to 1%.
List the 26. Or are you making up numbers?
|
On September 30 2010 06:54 catamorphist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 06:05 Lazy_Peasant wrote:Chess Ratings are broken down: 2200+ master (grandmasters aren't done by rating points explicitly but they are typically start around 2500-2600) 2000-2200 Expert 1800-2000 Class A 1600-1800 Class B 1400-1600 Class C 1200-1400 Class D Under 1200 Novices There are 1192 Grandmasters in the world. There are 60 from the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/spo_che_gra-sports-chess-grandmastersTo put that in perspective there are about 83,000 members of the US Chess Federation. According to this source, http://www.sizes.com/sports/chess_ratings.htm ,you can find the percentiles for chess ratings. Masters being in the top 2-3% of US Chess players. Remember, that's the top 2-3% of rated USCF members, not the top 2-3% of U.S. players. That is, the top 2-3% of actively competing tournament players who are paying $50 a year for a membership. More elite than it sounds.
But also, A is like top 1% of people who play ICCUP, which alone is top like 5% of people who have ever played BW. Plus, pretty much anyone who I would call a chess player has played at least one USCF tournament. Maybe this is less true for children, but anyone who is an adult who hasn't ever played in a tournament is unlikely to really be a chess player. I don't count playing chess only while drunk at parties as being a chess player.
In response to other comments in the thread, I think that B would correspond to much better than 1600 in chess. 1600 is like the skill level of a weak club player, which I think would correspond better to like C at best.
|
On September 30 2010 08:14 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 06:54 catamorphist wrote:On September 30 2010 06:05 Lazy_Peasant wrote:Chess Ratings are broken down: 2200+ master (grandmasters aren't done by rating points explicitly but they are typically start around 2500-2600) 2000-2200 Expert 1800-2000 Class A 1600-1800 Class B 1400-1600 Class C 1200-1400 Class D Under 1200 Novices There are 1192 Grandmasters in the world. There are 60 from the US. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/spo_che_gra-sports-chess-grandmastersTo put that in perspective there are about 83,000 members of the US Chess Federation. According to this source, http://www.sizes.com/sports/chess_ratings.htm ,you can find the percentiles for chess ratings. Masters being in the top 2-3% of US Chess players. Remember, that's the top 2-3% of rated USCF members, not the top 2-3% of U.S. players. That is, the top 2-3% of actively competing tournament players who are paying $50 a year for a membership. More elite than it sounds. I don't count playing chess only while drunk at parties as being a chess player.
Glad to know im not crazy and other people actually do this.
|
The ELO system just makes so much more sense, as it provides a very accurate representation of your skill, usually.
|
All this "D+" is good or "D+ is bad" is completely relative really. According to sc2Ranks.com, there are a total of 1,302,065 players in all the leagues combined. Diamond league has 91,699 of them, making anybody in the diamond league in the 93rd percentile of all players. We can probably assume that 800+ diamond is the top 99th percentile, which is pretty good in any ranking system. What makes the 800+ diamond not seem so good is just how much better the 1800+ diamond players are in comparison. It's all relative really. Did you guys watch how Jaedong and Bisu completely annihilated the best foreigners that we consider "good" in the WCG? Aren't they "noobs" as well considering how much better Jaedong and Bisu played? Everybody is a noob to somebody. This holds true for everybody but the few at the very very top.
|
i think your description of 800 diamond players was a little harsh.
they're better than that =/
what you described was like silver-gold
either that or the NA people reaaaaaally suck
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
