|
|
Mean Minis (2020) Author
Posts: 774
  
Location: India | The LMI Puzzle Ratings have now been updated after Puzzle Jackpot.
A total of 236 players from 38 countries find a place in the ratings, including 11 re-entries and 19 new players. Players who have missed the three most recent puzzle tests have not been included in the rating list.
The Top 6 remain the same. motris continues to lead the ratings at 996. The highest gainer has been Alberto who gained 186 points. Amongst the Top 50, pixl has been the highest gainer, gaining 151 points. The highest ranked new player is Valezius at #99. |
| |
|
Posts: 329
Location: India | The LMI Sudoku Ratings have now been updated after the January Monthly Sudoku Test "Prime Exotica".
A total of 268 players are included in the current rating list, including 31 new players and 7 re-entries.
Thomas consolidated his #1 position with a top performance, and remains the only one with a four digit rating. Rishi lost 34 points but remained in 2nd position.
None of the Top 10 gained any rating points. WaterlooMathie was the only new name (re-entry) in the Top 20 at #16. David McNeill gained 17 rating points to move up to #15. Fred76, who tested Prime Exotica, gained 2 ranks as others around him lost a few rating points.
TiiT is the highest ranked new player at #71. Valezius gained 50 ranks to move to #70. In the Top 50, jonm, karin and Psyho were the major gainers. |
| |
|
Mean Minis (2020) Author
Posts: 774
Location: India | The LMI Sudoku Ratings have now been updated after the February Monthly Sudoku Test "Double Delight". A total of 231 players are included in the current rating list.
The Top 3:
1. motris - 997
2. purifire - 913
3. jaku111 - 911
WaterlooMathie, the Double Delight winner, continued his rise with a gain of 60 points and 3 ranks. TiiT and bskbri were the two biggest gainers in the Top 100.
Top 3 from India:
1. purifire - 913
2. Rohan rao - 860
3. gauravkorde - 676
Overall, 37 countries are represented in the ratings. A distribution of the countries with the maximum rated participants is shown below:
 |
| |
|
Posts: 30
Location: Canada | I notice I'm missing from the rankings now. (I think I've done only one test since November.) How do you determine whether someone is 'active' or not? How long before you get removed? |
| |
|
Posts: 329
Location: India | figonometry - 2011-02-19 5:43 AM
I notice I'm missing from the rankings now. (I think I've done only one test since November.) How do you determine whether someone is 'active' or not? How long before you get removed?
If you miss three consecutive tests then your name is temporarily dropped from the ratings. You will again enter in the list as soon as you play another test.
Sudoku tests / ratings and Puzzle tests /ratings are totally different entities....and are not mixed together. |
| |
|
Posts: 329
Location: India | neerajmehrotra - 2011-02-19 9:22 PM
figonometry - 2011-02-19 5:43 AM
I notice I'm missing from the rankings now. (I think I've done only one test since November.) How do you determine whether someone is 'active' or not? How long before you get removed?
If you miss three consecutive tests then your name is temporarily dropped from the ratings. You will again enter in the list as soon as you play another test.
Sudoku tests / ratings and Puzzle tests /ratings are totally different entities....and are not mixed together.
Further if you have missed two consecutive tests then you will be shown as N... which is an indication that your name will be dropped in the next list if you dont play the next test. |
| |
|
Mean Minis (2020) Author
Posts: 774
Location: India | figonometry - 2011-02-19 5:43 AM
I notice I'm missing from the rankings now. (I think I've done only one test since November.) How do you determine whether someone is 'active' or not? How long before you get removed? Hope to see you back in the next ratings update. All your previous scores WILL be considered while calculating the new ratings. |
| |
|
Posts: 30
Location: Canada | Awesome, thanks. Maybe now I'll have the motivation to do better! |
| |
|
Posts: 329
Location: India | Updated LMI Puzzle Ratings after Puzzle Zoo (February 2011 LMI puzzle test) are now available. Overall, 186 players are included in the ratings, including 14 new players and 8 re-entries.
Not much of topsy-turvy.......except a few changes in Top 10. Psyho climbs up to #7, gaining 54 rating points after Puzzle Zoo. Willwc enters the Top 10, gaining 14 rating points. Uvo sitting just behind deu and battling hard to reach the second spot.
Rob was the biggest gainer from Puzzle Zoo, gaining 221 points and 113 ranks. Amongst the Top 50, Valezius gained 181 points, and Nyuta gained 95 points. Notable re-entries to the rating list include #19 (Tarotaro) and #40 (ByronosaurusRex). |
| |
|
Mean Minis (2020) Author
Posts: 774
Location: India | Updated LMI Puzzle Ratings after Puzzle Hybrids (LMI March 2011 Puzzle Test) are now available.
motris (992), deu (984) and uvo (955) occupy the top 3 spots. |
| |
|
Mean Minis (2020) Author
Posts: 774
Location: India | The following table shows the highest ranked puzzlers from the countries that are represented in the Top 50:
(The countries are in alphabetical order)
| Country | Puzzler | Rank | Rating | | Austria | euklid | 23 | 647 | | Canada | ByronosaurusRex | 39 | 558 | | Czech Republic | Janka1 | 13 | 721 | | France | godisdead | 24 | 640 | | Germany | uvo | 3 | 955 | | Hungary | Valezius | 20 | 674 | | India | Rohan Rao | 34 | 587 | | Italy | forcolin | 28 | 617 | | Japan | deu | 2 | 984 | | Poland | Psyho | 7 | 808 | | Romania | rubben | 32 | 591 | | Serbia | nikola | 4 | 888 | | Slovakia | pista | 16 | 699 | | The Netherlands | Para | 27 | 621 | | Turkey | yureklis | 21 | 673 | | UK | drsteve | 29 | 601 | | USA | motris | 1 | 992 | |
| |
|
Mean Minis (2020) Author
Posts: 774
Location: India | Updated LMI Sudoku Ratings after Spring Sudoku Test (LMI March 2011 Sudoku Test) are now available.
motris (998), nikola (892) and jaku111 (881) occupy the top 3 spots. |
| |
|
WSPC Organizer
Posts: 739
Location: India | rakesh_rai - 2011-03-23 2:54 PM
The following table shows the highest ranked puzzlers from the countries that are represented in the Top 50: (The countries are in alphabetical order ) | Country | Puzzler | Rank | Rating | | Austria | euklid | 23 | 647 | | Canada | ByronosaurusRex | 39 | 558 | | Czech Republic | Janka1 | 13 | 721 | | France | godisdead | 24 | 640 | | Germany | uvo | 3 | 955 | | Hungary | Valezius | 20 | 674 | | India | Rohan Rao | 34 | 587 | | Italy | forcolin | 28 | 617 | | Japan | deu | 2 | 984 | | Poland | Psyho | 7 | 808 | | Romania | rubben | 32 | 591 | | Serbia | nikola | 4 | 888 | | Slovakia | pista | 16 | 699 | | The Netherlands | Para | 27 | 621 | | Turkey | yureklis | 21 | 673 | | UK | drsteve | 29 | 601 | | USA | motris | 1 | 992 |
Sad that India is nowhere near the top. |
| |
|
Posts: 329
Location: India | But we have a better scene in Sudokus....with two persons in top 10......... |
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: United States | I meant to ask this question after Twist, but it certainly comes up again after the April Sudoku test too. For the purposes of the Puzzle Ratings and Sudoku Ratings, how do you account for the different scoring systems in play in different tests. Do you use strict score only, or time, or absolute rank, or some combination of these? Having a fair way to compare very different tests seems really important to keep this world leader board accurate, and I think many of us would like to know more about how the system works. As Nikola mentioned after Twist, it might be time to stop experimenting so much with scoring and start to use a consistent system that will apply to all tests, to keep the Ratings system as fair and even as possible.
Edited by motris 2011-04-25 9:02 PM
|
| |
|
Mean Minis (2020) Author
Posts: 774
Location: India | motris - 2011-04-25 8:56 PM
I meant to ask this question after Twist, but it certainly comes up again after the April Sudoku test too. For the purposes of the Puzzle Ratings and Sudoku Ratings, how do you account for the different scoring systems in play in different tests. Do you use strict score only, or time, or absolute rank, or some combination of these? At the outset, we would like to thank you for asking this question. Within ourselves, we have been discussing exactly these same things recently. To answer your question, the current system uses strict score only. As long as the score is a function of time, we did not feel the need to include time as a separate factor. This was the case in most tests, where anyone solving the complete (or almost complete) test correctly would get some more points using a factor. But the April sudoku test did not use time as a factor for scoring - it did give 5 points extra but difference between 91 and 101 was considered the same as difference between 116 and 117, for example. We have discussed using rank also but ultimately we had decided against it.
Having a fair way to compare very different tests seems really important to keep this world leader board accurate We cannot agree more. Thats our objective too - to keep the rating system accurate and acceptable.
As Nikola mentioned after Twist, it might be time to stop experimenting so much with scoring and start to use a consistent system that will apply to all tests, to keep the Ratings system as fair and even as possible. There can be so many different scoring systems. And, unless we try them in a test, we do not know the efficacy of the scoring system. So, I do not necessarily agree that we should stick to one scoring system (it could become boring, in a way). Lets have the flexibility and freedom of having different systems at play in different tests. I think that the rating system should adapt to the scoring system(s)...and not the other way. Neither can the rating system remain static - it also needs to be reviewed from time to time for continuous improvement.
and I think many of us would like to know more about how the system works. Currently, we are midway through the process of coming up with suitable improvements to the existing rating mechanism. Once finalized, the "how" part will be shared on the site as well.
At the same time, we would like everyone to share any ideas/suggestions/criticisms - small or big - from the ratings point of view on this forum. And, we will address each one of those while finalizing the system. |
| |
|
Location: India | As Rakesh mentioned, feel free to post ideas / suggestions on ratings, especially on
How to normalize scores in a test?
How to compare scores across tests?
How to deal with 0 scores / no submissions?
How to deal with players joining late or players not playing frequently?
etc...
Should anyone need sample data, please let us know. |
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: United States | Thanks for your reply. I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be interested to learn the methodology behind the system as it is a real "world leader board" these days.
My personal recommendation is to not necessarily lock in scoring systems (what puzzles are worth) as these can be varied by authors on different tests to affect strategy, but after the base score of a test is calculated, the only way for the rankings to use score fairly for complete finishers is to either include time in your formula, or always use N points per minute where N is close to "max value of test/time". I like creative scoring ideas, like in Puzzle Jackpot, or special bonuses as in Evergreens or in my 20+10 Decathlon for completing sets of puzzles, but we should realize scoring of puzzles is a different component of the test than correctly using the time of finishers to measure relative performance.
So on April Sudoku, I would certainly have just used ~5 points per minute (600/120). On Twist I would have used the same staggered "value of minutes" for the bonus, instead of going down to a nominal .5 points per minute. So I would have earned 1 minute at 100%, 10 minutes at 75%, 10 minutes at 60%, and 10 minutes at 50%. In each case, simply making the time worth the value of those minutes for other solvers allows the relative performance of all finishers to be correctly staggered for your ratings, for UKPA rankings, and so on. Unlike a one-time WPC where it doesn't matter as much, LMI has really become one of the big forums for monthly competition and so consistency is absolutely required in the ranking system. |
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: United States | debmohanty - 2011-04-26 9:38 PM
As Rakesh mentioned, feel free to post ideas / suggestions on ratings, especially on
How to normalize scores in a test?
How to compare scores across tests?
How to deal with 0 scores / no submissions?
How to deal with players joining late or players not playing frequently?
etc...
Should anyone need sample data, please let us know.
There are some interesting questions here.
I've thought about the 0/no submission score a bit. I think one option is to put a choice on the test upfront, something like "I want to play the test for the official ranking" or "I do not want to play the test for the official ranking". Either gives you a password and locks in a start time for your account. If you just want to see the test but not record a score, then you can now do so. But if you have solvers who are instead starting the test, and only putting in answers if they feel they did well, you can now separate those from each other. There will also always be the potential for technical problems, so I'm guessing that the rating probably does something like drop/minimize the value of the lowest recent test which can account for one time technical problems that led to a 0 result or particularly low score.
I've also always been surprised that the tests have a fixed time for last submission, as opposed to a fixed time for last start. I suppose advertising a 48-hour window is the point, but if that's the case I'd simply always run the tests for 50 hours. Changing to the latter format would eliminate the situation (that is always frustrating for the solver) of realizing they started too late and have a low score. While this won't be common among the frequent players, for people taking one of their first tests you do not want to cause a negative experience or they may not want to come back. A check on test start times is a huge improvement in my opinion.
Edited by motris 2011-04-26 10:03 PM
|
| |
|
Location: India | 0 score/No submission -
I've never thought about that details because I always assumed players don't submit either a) they never intended to submit or b) they had some technical issues.
In context of ratings, it may be possible that some players submit only if they think they did well enough. I've no idea if that is a reality, but we can definitely add an option as you describe.
As of now, we simply ignore 0 scores for ratings computations.
Fixed Start Time Vs Fixed End Time -
This has been pending for a long long time even confusing regular players sometimes. It will be fixed in May Puzzle test (and onwards)
I would like to mention that it does not happen frequently because I always push the end time if I believe some serious player started the test later than when they should have. But I've missed it couple of times ( e.g. here & here). So it is better to be clear upfront.
|
| |
|
Location: India | motris - 2011-04-26 9:45 PM
So on April Sudoku, I would certainly have just used ~5 points per minute (600/120). On Twist I would have used the same staggered "value of minutes" for the bonus, instead of going down to a nominal .5 points per minute. So I would have earned 1 minute at 100%, 10 minutes at 75%, 10 minutes at 60%, and 10 minutes at 50%. In each case, simply making the time worth the value of those minutes for other solvers allows the relative performance of all finishers to be correctly staggered for your ratings, for UKPA rankings, and so on. Unlike a one-time WPC where it doesn't matter as much, LMI has really become one of the big forums for monthly competition and so consistency is absolutely required in the ranking system.
I agree on the April Sudoku part.
On Twist, I'm probably missing your point. Since the puzzle points were reduced after 90 minutes, we can't give significant bonus after 90 minutes. Otherwise, it will work as double-penalty for others. Again, I could have misunderstood your point.
[ The idea of .5 per minute is to separate solvers solving at 95 minutes vs 99 minutes. ] |
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: United States | debmohanty - 2011-04-27 4:44 AM
On Twist, I'm probably missing your point. Since the puzzle points were reduced after 90 minutes, we can't give significant bonus after 90 minutes. Otherwise, it will work as double-penalty for others. Again, I could have misunderstood your point.
[ The idea of .5 per minute is to separate solvers solving at 95 minutes vs 99 minutes. ]
I'm not asking for significant bonus (meaning "more than the value of puzzles of that time"). I'm asking for the time bonus to scale exactly as the expected point-per-minute value other solvers got did for the "extra" time.
If the standard value (as you chose for time bonus) is ~5 points per minute, then when the rest of the solvers entered 75% value time, and could still effectively earn 3.75 or more points per minute for submitting solutions, the time bonus should also scale to 75% of the value for that time, or 3.75 points per minute. Instead, the time bonus dropped to 10% of its value for the whole extra time and everyone effectively gained in relative score based on extra time despite my large margin of victory by time.
You can view the 90 minute and 120 minute flat results to see that "normal" scoring would have uvo at around 79-80% of my score. The result with only 10% time bonus was uvo at 87% of my score. With a bonus that is instead 3.75 for 10 minutes, 3 for 10 minutes, and 2.5 for 10 minutes, the scores would now be 813.5 versus 641.8 and this would give uvo about 79% of my score. I hope this shows how the balance of results can be preserved with scaling, provided all points scale the same way.
|
| |
|
Location: India | Thanks for explaining, and I agree with what you are saying.
The current ratings system doesn't take time-to-finish into account. So, it is only ideal that we compensate top solvers by adding appropriate time-bonus in each test.
|
| |
|
Location: India | Back to the Rating System, what are the different options to normalizes scores in each test so that we can compare scores across tests?
We've some basic rule which works quite well, but would love to hear independent ideas. |
| |
|
Location: India | And one more - Rakesh mentioned that we don't consider player's Rank for the ratings.
Is it something we need to consider? In a way, I guess it is all related to normalization. |
| |
WSPC 2017 • Schedule • Participation • Location • WSC • WPC • Contact •Search •Recent
LMI Players' Rating System
