[nullve]

helene_t, on 2016-January-05, 06:59, said:

it is not so funny to play chess against someone with a very different skill level.

Isn't this just as true of bridge?

helene_t, on 2016-January-05, 06:59, said:

And ELO is based on realistic competion where you don't have players who leave halfway through the board

This seems to be less of a problem on chess.com where players know that if they leave, they will lose both the game and rating points. So perhaps the rating system there has a disciplining effect. (It certainly has on me.)

[nige1]

helene_t, on 2016-January-05, 06:59, said:

And ELO is based on realistic competition where you don't have players who leave halfway through the board...

nullve, on 2016-January-05, 07:22, said:

This seems to be less of a problem on chess.com where players know that if they leave, they will lose both the game and rating points. So perhaps the rating system there has a disciplining effect. (It certainly has on me.)

nullve makes a good argument for such a Bridge rating system.

[billw55]

helene_t, on 2016-January-05, 05:38, said:

Why would you want ratings of pairs?

I don't. I was only pointing out that it is at least possible to do so with some semblance of accuracy.

helene_t, on 2016-January-05, 05:38, said:

The whole idea of calculating ratings based on human-vs-human online play is silly.

I reluctantly agree. Reluctantly, because I recognize the utility of ratings in online play of other games, most especially go. But for bridge against mostly random ops it is not very practical. The best use of rating is for opponent selection (which could work), but most BBO players want it for partner selection (which it is not good for at all).

helene_t, on 2016-January-05, 05:38, said:

I can understand why the idea appeals to some people but I also think that most of the bboskill users would acknowledge how silly it is if they thought deeply enough about it.

"most" is a huge overbid

[lycier]

How about bbo star players? Not all the stars really play so well, this is a fact. Are their rating useful to everyone?
Of course, it is not easy to find and play with/against decent players/pairs with good skill online at any time.
It seems most of BBOers are beginners or intermediate, isn't it ? If it is a fact, the rating is useless to most people.

[sfi]

lycier, on 2016-January-07, 18:25, said:

It seems most of BBOers are beginners or intermediate, isn't it ? If it is a fact, the rating is useless to most people.

Most people in any group are either beginners or intermediate. The mere fact that most people on BBO rate themselves otherwise is a telling point in itself. The only thing that has some real merit is the star rating, which is at least an objective real-world measure. Some people with stars may not be very good, but it does show some experience in bridge out of the online context.

Not very helpful, I understand. Personal experience will count for much more than any rating system (self-rated or otherwise).

[lycier]

sfi, on 2016-January-07, 18:52, said:

Most people in any group are either beginners or intermediate. The mere fact that most people on BBO rate themselves otherwise is a telling point in itself. The only thing that has some real merit is the star rating, which is at least an objective real-world measure. Some people with stars may not be very good, but it does show some experience in bridge out of the online context.

Not very helpful, I understand. Personal experience will count for much more than any rating system (self-rated or otherwise).

Here I suggest to close bbo self-rating system due to uselessness.
Every day you usually see a phenomenon at bbo, too many people as a table host only select "expert" to join the table in the MBC. I had made some investigation on it, some of my friends told me that they were forced to use "expert" self-rating online on the different usernames, if they didn't do such, they will have no way to play normally with others online because most of table hosts thought only both of expert and world class are decent players, otherwise the rest are weak and bad players. If they use "expert" self-rating ,of course,they can do as they like.
Even those opinions are one-sided, it is a fact. So I guess you would meet some strange things at bbo,some "world class" often play worse than beginners. Of course, this is a joker. Actually "World Class" don't be claimed because we know who is,who not.
At BBO, if self rating "World Class" without star symbol, "World Class" = W.C. in the most situations, I believe many people think so.

[billw55]

lycier, on 2016-January-07, 19:52, said:

Here I suggest to close bbo self-rating system due to uselessness.
Every day you usually see a phenomenon at bbo, too many people as a table host only select "expert" to join the table in the MBC. I had made some investigation on it, some of my friends told me that they were forced to use "expert" self-rating online on the different usernames, if they didn't do such, they will have no way to play normally with others online because most of table hosts thought only both of expert and world class are decent players, otherwise the rest are weak and bad players. If they use "expert" self-rating ,of course,they can do as they like.
Even those opinions are one-sided, it is a fact. So I guess you would meet some strange things at bbo,some "world class" often play worse than beginners. Of course, this is a joker. Actually "World Class" don't be claimed because we know who is,who not.
At BBO, if self rating "World Class" without star symbol, "World Class" = W.C. in the most situations, I believe many people think so.

I don't think it is entirely useless. Although there are obviously many exceptions, my own observation based on frequent play in MBC is that there is a statistical correlation between self-rating and actual skill. After adjusting for certain nationalities, I find that self rated "experts" are at least competent on basics maybe two thirds of the time. I may have to adjust some expectations (rebidding of 5 card suits, 4NT always keycard, etc), but often I can manage. Whereas self rated "intermediates" are almost always very weak, usually not knowing fundamentals like basic ranges for bids, simple attitude signals, etc. "Advanced" is a middle ground, and seems to have the widest range. So despite the variance, there is utility to this, it definitely works better than picking partners totally at random.

[mgoetze]

billw55, on 2016-January-08, 08:30, said:

"Advanced" is a middle ground

Back when I used to play with randoms, the average "advanced" player was better than the average "expert" player.

[barmar]

I suspect the self-ratings are generally more accurate at the low end. Players rarely underrate themselves intentionally, so if someone says they're a beginner or intermediate, they probably really are.

[billw55]

mgoetze, on 2016-January-08, 08:37, said:

Back when I used to play with randoms, the average "advanced" player was better than the average "expert" player.

I don't find this true anymore. Perhaps the "advanced" who were actually good caught on and promoted themselves. These days "advanced" players seem to have about a 2/3 chance of knowing what a negative double is. Almost all of them routinely rebid 5 card suits, and many pass and then back into auctions later with 5 card suits, often bad ones. "World class" on the other hand, are worse than "expert".

Flags/nationalities can be significant. One odd thing I have noticed: Canadian flags with "expert" are the most reliable strong players I have found. They are almost always pretty good (probably stronger than I am - it gets hard to evaluate near or beyond one's own level). Strangely though, Canadian "advanced" tend to be duffers.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2016-January-08, 08:59, said:

I suspect the self-ratings are generally more accurate at the low end. Players rarely underrate themselves intentionally, so if someone says they're a beginner or intermediate, they probably really are.

Partly agree. "Intermediate" does seem to be the most reliable self rating of all. However it almost always indicates a life novice.

[nige1]

lycier, on 2016-January-07, 19:52, said:

Here I suggest to close bbo self-rating system due to uselessness.
Every day you usually see a phenomenon at bbo, too many people as a table host only select "expert" to join the table in the MBC. I had made some investigation on it, some of my friends told me that they were forced to use "expert" self-rating online on the different usernames, if they didn't do such, they will have no way to play normally with others online because most of table hosts thought only both of expert and world class are decent players, otherwise the rest are weak and bad players. If they use "expert" self-rating ,of course,they can do as they like.
Even those opinions are one-sided, it is a fact. So I guess you would meet some strange things at bbo,some "world class" often play worse than beginners. Of course, this is a joker. Actually "World Class" don't be claimed because we know who is,who not.
At BBO, if self rating "World Class" without star symbol, "World Class" = W.C. in the most situations, I believe many people think so.

Lycier makes excellent points. Nevertheless, IMO, self-ratings (slightly) are a slight improvement on nothing, although objective ratings would be better.

[Zelandakh]

billw55, on 2016-January-08, 10:32, said:

However it almost always indicates a life novice.

Careful Bill, some of us intermediates might take that personally.

[lycier]

barmar, on 2016-January-08, 08:59, said:

I suspect the self-ratings are generally more accurate at the low end. Players rarely underrate themselves intentionally, so if someone says they're a beginner or intermediate, they probably really are.

It is wrong for what you said " Players rarely underrate themselves intentionally, so if someone says they're a beginner or intermediate, they probably really are."

On the contrary, I absolutely believe that many of novice and beginners from my country at bbo never be worse than you since our chinese traditional culture is " modesty is a virtue ". And even some teammates of nation team ,their self-rating are only intermediate or private.
So do many excellent American players at BBO!


What is the nature of self-rating?
After the observation and thinking for many years, I found actually this is a psychological problem which are related with mentality, psychological balance, cognition content and cognition degree,etc.
Confident people believe in themselves, their self-rating are usually something like intermediate. People who are not self-confident usually want to keep the dignity and self-confidence ! Even some BBO star players,their self-rating are beginner,intermediate or advanced. So I strongly think the nature of self-rating is only a FIG leaf !

billw55, on 2016-January-08, 08:30, said:

I don't think it is entirely useless. Although there are obviously many exceptions, my own observation based on frequent play in MBC is that there is a statistical correlation between self-rating and actual skill. After adjusting for certain nationalities, I find that self rated "experts" are at least competent on basics maybe two thirds of the time. I may have to adjust some expectations (rebidding of 5 card suits, 4NT always keycard, etc), but often I can manage. Whereas self rated "intermediates" are almost always very weak, usually not knowing fundamentals like basic ranges for bids, simple attitude signals, etc. "Advanced" is a middle ground, and seems to have the widest range. So despite the variance, there is utility to this, it definitely works better than picking partners totally at random.

You mean a bit in the morning is better than nothing all day? taste like chicken ribs, it may be just time for BBO to delete the option on self-rating at present.

[lycier]

billw55, on 2016-January-08, 09:47, said:

Flags/nationalities can be significant. One odd thing I have noticed: Canadian flags with "expert" are the most reliable strong players I have found. They are almost always pretty good (probably stronger than I am - it gets hard to evaluate near or beyond one's own level). Strangely though, Canadian "advanced" tend to be duffers.

I don't find this true anymore. Perhaps Canadian flags with "expert" are from decent players in the other country, just like too many players with American flag, they are not American in fact. There is nothing to be strange, the statue of liberty only stands in New York harbor.

[nullve]

lycier, on 2016-January-08, 18:39, said:

What is the nature of self-rating?
After the observation and thinking for many years, I found actually this is a psychological problem which are related with mentality, psychological balance, cognition content and cognition degree,etc.
Confident people believe in themselves, their self-rating are usually something like intermediate. People who are not self-confident usually want to keep the dignity and self-confidence ! Even some BBO star players,their self-rating are beginner,intermediate or advanced. So I strongly think the nature of self-rating is only a FIG leaf !

You might have rediscovered the Dunning-Kruger effect:

https://en.wikipedia...93Kruger_effect

lycier, on 2016-January-08, 18:39, said:

It is wrong for what you said " Players rarely underrate themselves intentionally, so if someone says they're a beginner or intermediate, they probably really are."

On the contrary, I absolutely believe that many of novice and beginners from my country at bbo never be worse than you since our chinese traditional culture is " modesty is a virtue ". And even some teammates of nation team ,their self-rating are only intermediate or secret.

Interestingly,

Quote

Studies on the Dunning–Kruger effect tend to focus on American test subjects. A number of studies on East Asian subjects suggest that different social forces are at play in different cultures. For example, East Asians tend to underestimate their abilities and see underachievement as a chance to improve themselves and to get along with others. [from the above article]

[steve2005]

billw55, on 2016-January-08, 08:30, said:

I don't think it is entirely useless.

It's data is over 2 years old, is useless.

[1eyedjack]

steve2005, on 2016-January-08, 21:04, said:

It's data is over 2 years old, is useless.

His post that you quoted referred to self rating, not bboskill. There has been some thread drift latterly.

[1eyedjack]

barmar, on 2016-January-08, 08:59, said:

I suspect the self-ratings are generally more accurate at the low end. Players rarely underrate themselves intentionally, so if someone says they're a beginner or intermediate, they probably really are.

On the other hand, a beginner can hardly underrate himself, and if he accurately 'fesses up he never gets a game. Or so he perceives it.

[nullve]

I did a little experiment today, to see how long it would take me to get a MP game when I chose different self-ratings. I had decided to give up if the table wasn't full after 10 minutes, though.

Result:

* I didn't manage to get a game as Private, Novice, Beginner, Intermediate or Advanced. In fact, noone turned up except after 9 minutes when I was Private.
* I got a game as Expert after 3 minutes.

I didn't try to self-rate as World Class after I got a game as Expert.