If you click on your name, you go to your profile page that contains scores in all tests that you have taken part. These are the numbers based on which your ratings are calculated. Note that your scores in TVC are not included for ratings. You can see the history of scores for any player this way.

We have shared the computation logic already. But we feel that a full table of numbers used during ratings calculation can be cumbersome and complex, so it may not be needed online.

But, since you have asked, your normalized scores in the three tests are 601, 670 and 723. And you have played only 3 tests so far. Although the weighted average rating (based on these tests) is 665, you are penalized by a small factor to arrive at your final rating which is 651 currently. Here is the 'pink' table for you:





Attachments
----------------
kiwijam.png (10KB - 1 downloads)

May be we should enhance the Profile page to display the pink table and related computations. It needs some amount of work. So no promises right now.

I would love to see "my pink table" in my profile page! And I think I speak for many puzzlers here. :-)

Have fun, Stefan

The profile page has the pink table now.

My Puzzle Rating is not correct. The weighted average of my NS should be 707, my rating is 724, though.

Are you sure that you have implemented the weighted average of the NS correctly? I arrive at approx. 724 when I compute a non-weighted(!) average of my results, including the EvergreensI-result which should have weight zero by now.

In the pink table I would love to see the EvergreensI data (NS,...) also. It has weight 0 of course but the data is available and interesting nevertheless.

Thanks,
Stefan

Thanks for pointing out this discrepancy. There are no problems with the implementation; however, we did find that your Twist score was completely missed in the ratings calculation. The ratings will be corrected today.

OK. We'll include the ratings data (PS/RS/NS) for zero weight tests as well.

Edited by rakesh_rai 2011-05-25 10:37 AM

This is done. Now you can see your normalized scores for even those tests which are not included in current ratings (like EG1).

The Puzzle Ratings have now been updated. Also, the sudoku ratings have been updated to rectify one error in Sampler Platter scores.

One more request of minor importance. Is it possible to mark those players' names in the result tables who have opted not to be included in the LMI rating?

MaYnipulation has 83 participants according to result table but 82 participants according to the LMI rating. If the one player were marked somehow (e.g. asterix at his name), everybody could calculate his LMI rating for himself and "verify" the correctness of the official LMI rating. :-)

That is a reasonable request - we should do it in next test.
Thanks for all the suggestions, however minor they may be, they certainly are missing.

Please don't hesitate to suggest any other things!

This is done. You should see * next to the name for players who opt not to include their score in ratings.

The sudoku ratings are updated after Something is Missing.

motris, deu, misko, nikola and jaku111 are the Top 5.

This was the 13th LMI sudoku test and, hence, Mastermind Twins are excluded from the ratings now.

Edited by rakesh_rai 2011-05-31 8:53 PM

My Sudoku rating is 623 now, which is incorrect. It should be 681. Please check.

Stefan

This looks like a big computation mistake somewhere in the system, hope I'm wrong.

The rating system, for some reason, likes you.

Yes. This was another error which had gone unnoticed somehow. Thanks for spotting it. Those who scored equal to the test median score are affected. For example, you scored 145 in the last sudoku test which happened to be the median score as well. And the system was giving PS as 50 instead of 500. The correct ratings should be up soon.

Thanks for finding the mistake and correcting it. Still there remains a small(?) mistake since I have a sudoku rating of 688 now but should have 681.

My Normalized Scores (NS) given at my profile are correct, i.e. they are the same that I did compute myself.

But then, the rating must be:
(492+837+696+643*.8+721*.8+711*.6)/5.2=681

Since rounding errors are not sufficient to explain the difference of 7 points, there still must be a mistake.

Good luck for finding the error,
Stefan

P.S.: My prorated Score (PS) of the SomethingIsMissing test was always given as 500 at my profile. This proves that you have calculated the PS two times. One time to display it at my profile (PS=500) and one time to calculate my rating (there you used PS=50). Computing two times is always dangerous (if you adapt the rating in the future you will always have to do it twice...) but it might have some practical reasons. A similar mistake based on double computation must still be currently in place.

We are having an issue here - we've 2 different systems
1) Rakesh uses excel to compute all ratings and uploads after every test
2) What you see in profile page is directly computed from the score sheet

There are minor differences in computation in these 2 systems because of which we are seeing this difference.

As a first step, we are working on making sure that 1) and 2) are same.
As a future step, we are planning to get rid of 1) so that we've all the computation at one place. This will take a while because of the complexity involved.

The LMI Puzzle Ratings have been updated after Fillomino Fillia.

The Top 5: Motris, Deu, Uvo, MelloMelon and Nikola

Edited by rakesh_rai 2011-06-21 9:28 PM

The LMI Sudoku Ratings have been updated after L O G I D O K U.

The Top 5: Motris, Nikola, Jaku111, Misko and Deu.

Just in case that it is a still unknown bug:

My rank score (RS) for "Something is missing" has suddenly changed from 469 to 573. That would mean that the number of participants has jumped from 96 to 119,5 (my rank of #52 has not changed).
My rank score (RS) for "X'mas Special" has suddenly changed from 734 to 770. That would mean that the number of participants has jumped from 139 to 161 (my rank of #38 has not changed).

My prorated scores (PS) have not changed.

Stefan

No bug here. Number of participants stays the same.


This step is completed, that is the reason you are seeing these changes.

Probably the calculations are not so obvious from the given formula. For rating calculations, if two players have the same score, they will have the same RS, even if they are actually ranked N and N+1 respectively, in the test. So, the effective formula becomes

RS = (1 - [No of scores > your score] / [No of non zero scores])*1000

Interestingly, the significant variations that you see are because 13 other players scored the same as your score in XMas Special, and 12 other players scored equal to you in Something is Missing.

Thanks for the explanation, rakesh. Now I understand.

In the pdf explaining the new rating system (V2.0) it said:

"RS=[1-(No of players ranked above the player)/(Total players with non zero scores)]*1000"

Actually I find this original formula better than the current implementation because the rank score (RS) should depend on the rank only whereas the prorated score (PS) should depend on the points only. As you have implemented the formula now, two players with the same points get the same PS AND the same RS. With the original formula the player that sent his last answer earlier has the higher rank and a small benefit at his RS and thus at his normalized score (NS).

Of course I am well aware that one could argue that the time when one sends his/her last answer does not need to be very significant. But then, consequently, all players with the same score should be awarded the same rank in the result table. My rank in "Something is Missing" should then be 42 instead of 52. If the scoring system uses the rank 42 it should be shown in all statistics.

In my opinion, the current ranking should remain (i.e. rank 52 for my "Something is Missing") and the RS formula should use this rank. I know that this would take away RS (and NS) points from all players, nobody will increase his score.

Stefan

[edit:] Just to make sure that I am not misinterpreted. Please note that I am very happy with the ranking system and can easily accept everything that you want to implement. All my comments are opinions and suggestions only and in no way intended as negative criticism.

Edited by euklid 2011-06-24 2:28 PM

All your comments are really appreciated.
I think we should do the changes that you noticed. The logic in 'View Profile' page is rather easy to change. I guess Rakesh will take some time to update the excel sheets.

I also agree with the suggestions. This will be a definite improvement in the implementation part of the rating system.

Here I come.
Thank you for all the work you are doing and congratulation for an excellent rating system.
However I feel there is always room for improvement in every system.

I can't express myself in mathematical terms I will try to express my concept qualitatively.

In my opinion the current system can be affected negatively by some individual factors. For example, if a player gets a extremely high score (the case of deu in the Nikoli contest) all the score of the mid-range players will be low. in my case, I scored approximately 50% of his points, so although my score is higher than the median value my PS is relatively low compared to other contests. My RS is higher but this accounts only for 25%. The conclusion is that my NS for this particular contest, in which I believe I played better than my average performance, is in fact lower than my current rating, as opposed to other contests in which perhaps I playes more badly but either there was no such a uncommon performance from a single player or the mechanism of score was less rewarding towards high scorers.

As said I have no particular recipe or formula to express this, just bear this in mind next time you review the system. Of course this calls for a consistent method of scoring and of calculating bonus points, but I fully agree that in certain contest the uncommon way of granting bonuses was the "pepper" in the recipe and the inventiveness of authors must be preserved.

Stefano