[han]

Well we can all laugh about it but the original poster had a very good suggestion:

Quote

Could I suggest that all members be encouraged to adopt a common basis for asessing skill levels.

Defining the method to assess skill levels is probably the easy part, the hard part is to convince all BBO members to use this method. Who volunteers?

[hotShot]

There are about 200 nations, lets say each has sent 10 teams with 6 members to events to represent them over the last 40 years. So there could be 12000 player that fit the description of WC.

[CSGibson]

hotShot, on Dec 23 2008, 01:22 AM, said:

There are about 200 nations, lets say each has sent 10 teams with 6 members to events to represent them over the last 40 years. So there could be 12000 player that fit the description of WC.

All of them from Turkey, if you believe the BBO statistics.

[cherdano]

hotShot, on Dec 23 2008, 02:22 AM, said:

There are about 200 nations, lets say each has sent 10 teams with 6 members to events to represent them over the last 40 years. So there could be 12000 player that fit the description of WC.

No let's not say 200 nations have sent a team to a bridge world championship.

[PeterGill]

A possible idea is that if you rate yourself as World Class
or Expert, you have another compulsory field to fill in:
Year I Learnt Bridge.

This would minimise realities that happen, such as 8 year old kids
finding BBO*, unaware that a world of intense bridge-playing exists,
and describing themselves as Expert because they are good at games.

Obviously it doesn't solve all the problems,
but it is simple and might reduce the problems a bit.

For those who choose World Class, a field in your profile:
"Best Bridge Achievement" is another possibility.

Peter Gill

* e.g. by googling "play bridge online"

[matmat]

PeterGill, on Dec 23 2008, 05:02 AM, said:

A possible idea is that if you rate yourself as World Class
or Expert, you have another compulsory field to fill in:
Year I Learnt Bridge.

This would minimise realities that happen, such as 8 year old kids
finding BBO*, unaware that a world of intense bridge-playing exists,
and describing themselves as Expert because they are good at games.

because a kid that is smart enough to figure out how to get on bbo will not be smart enough to put 1950 in that field?
geeee

[Trinidad]

matmat, on Dec 23 2008, 07:10 AM, said:

PeterGill, on Dec 23 2008, 05:02 AM, said:

A possible idea is that if you rate yourself as World Class
or Expert, you have another compulsory field to fill in:
Year I Learnt Bridge.

This would minimise realities that happen, such as 8 year old kids
finding BBO*, unaware that a world of intense bridge-playing exists,
and describing themselves as Expert because they are good at games.

because a kid that is smart enough to figure out how to get on bbo will not be smart enough to put 1950 in that field?
geeee

Most mistakes, in particular those made by kids, are made out of ignorance and in good faith.

It is entirely possible that a kid searches the www for online bridge after his first three bridge lessons. He finds BBO, sees that he needs to put in a skill level and enters 'expert' because he is good at games. (Who knows, maybe he is the best player in the bridge class of 8.) In that case, he will make the mistake in good faith. Under 'the year that you learnt to play bridge' he will obviously enter '2008', also in good faith.

My estimate is that Peter's suggestion will take care of more than 99% of the cases where children enter a skill level that is too high. So, Peter's suggestion will work a whole lot better than you think. Your thinking is based on the implicit assumption that people (children) lie consciously and are aiming at disrupting the system. Fortunately, this assumption is entirely wrong (otherwise this world would be a truely horrible place to live in).

Whether Peter's suggestion is worth the trouble is an entirely different question. I don't think that there are so many children playing on BBO. If I am right about that then Peter's suggestion is obviously not going to have much effect, but I may easily be wrong. There may actually be many children playing on BBO.

Rik

[helene_t]

PeterGill, on Dec 23 2008, 11:02 AM, said:

A possible idea is that if you rate yourself as World Class
or Expert, you have another compulsory field to fill in:
Year I Learnt Bridge.

I know plenty of players who have played more than ten times as long as KFay and QuantumCat combined and still don't have a clue. Dunno if they would label themselves as "Experts", though.

I see three ways of dealing with this "problem":
- Introduce some kind of objective rating (this has been proposed many times and most of us agree it would be a terrible development)
- Get rid of the rating
- Ignore the "problem"

[RichMor]

helene_t, on Dec 23 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

I see three ways of dealing with this "problem":
- Introduce some kind of objective rating (this has been proposed many times and most of us agree it would be a terrible development)
- Get rid of the rating
- Ignore the "problem"

Helene,

Could you explain the first part - 'objective rating'. I have not seen previous proposals.

Thanks,
RichM

[barmar]

Objective ratings would be something like the Lehman ratings that OKbridge uses.

http://www-personal....l/okrating.html

[mikeh]

MarkDean, on Dec 22 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

I have often wondered how many players believe they are in the top 100 players in the world.  Well not often, but I have wondered it before.  Any guesses?

A comparable issue: say we asked the top 300 players in WBF rankings, plus (to the extent not already duplicated in this) the top 1% (by masterpoints or equivalent) of players in all countries with a significant bridge playing population (I am not going to state how we determine the cut-off) who the top 100 players are.

How many names would appear on the list?

[JLOL]

jdonn, on Dec 22 2008, 08:03 PM, said:

It's about time the forums had an ill-informed post complaining about the self-rating system. I have long been waiting for the day it would finally happen.

LOL

[JLOL]

Trinidad, on Dec 23 2008, 10:27 AM, said:

Your thinking is based on the implicit assumption that people (children) lie consciously and are aiming at disrupting the system. Fortunately, this assumption is entirely wrong (otherwise this world would be a truely horrible place to live in).

LOL

[dcvetkov]

There is one good reason I think for people clicking that expert level, even they are aware they are not there. It goes something along these lines

("If I put my self as an expert, chances getting a seat in Main Club or wherever are much higher" and with Advanced and Int, much slimmer).
Everyone likes to play with or against better players. And if most Forumers are honest, they will admit they have rejected seata requests from Adv/ Int

You have all seen how many tables announce (Experts only please;), so this argument may hold some water.

There is time maybe BBO to revisit Lehman rating policy, or at least give it a try. If members dont welcome it, its easy to go back to old.

[RichMor]

barmar, on Dec 23 2008, 12:52 PM, said:

Objective ratings would be something like the Lehman ratings that OKbridge uses.

http://www-personal....l/okrating.html

OK, got it. I used to be an OKB member. Thanks.

[han]

dcvetkov, on Dec 23 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

There is time maybe BBO to revisit Lehman rating policy, or at least give it a try. If members dont welcome it, its easy to go back to old.

I think there is no time for any kind of rating, it is a bad idea.

[CSGibson]

dcvetkov, on Dec 23 2008, 11:14 AM, said:

There is one good reason I think for people clicking that expert level, even they are aware they are not there. It goes something along these lines

("If I put my self as an expert, chances getting a seat in Main Club or wherever are much higher" and with Advanced and Int, much slimmer).
Everyone likes to play with or against better players. And if most Forumers are honest, they will admit they have rejected seata requests from Adv/ Int

You have all seen how many tables announce  (Experts only please;), so this argument may hold some water.

There is time maybe BBO to revisit Lehman rating policy, or at least give it a try. If members dont welcome it, its easy to go back to old.

This does happen, but frankly, I'd rather be a good advanced player than a bad expert, and those are my two ratings choices.

If you are really advanced/intermediate and you lie about your skill level, it's going to take, what, 5 hands at most for your partner to figure out either that you lied or that you're drunk & distracted? Your skill level can increase with time, but the handwritten "Not a real expert" label in the notes field lasts until the server gets wiped. [edit: I suppose if it was really handwritten, it would last until the computer screen got wiped]

[matmat]

han, on Dec 23 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

I think there is no time for any kind of rating, it is a bad idea.

Yup.

[HeavyDluxe]

han, on Dec 23 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

I think there is no time for any kind of rating, it is a bad idea.

Being a compulsive organizer, I'd sure like more than simply Friend/Enemy flags... But, that's still an ample rating system. Play with someone, assess their game, and play with them (or not) in the future.

Granted, I don't doubt I'm on a lot of ppl's enemy lists... But, any other rating system seems like it would come with a lot of baggage.

[mtvesuvius]

han, on Dec 23 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

dcvetkov, on Dec 23 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

There is time maybe BBO to revisit Lehman rating policy, or at least give it a try. If members dont welcome it, its easy to go back to old.

I think there is no time for any kind of rating, it is a bad idea.

Have BBO Ratings would be just another thing that would be meaningless, and not very helpful... The effort put into creating ratings would be in vain. I doubt anyone would really value and use these ratings. Also, what do you suggest they be based on?? The main bridge club results are as wild as ever, so that is not a very accurate way of measuring... What did you have in mind?