Page 1 of 1

no-rank games

PostPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 20:11
by mort
Maybe this is not true, but I might have noticed it as a trend; do we possibly do better in no-rank games because we take greater risks?
And if so, would not the same attitude work in ranked games?

Re: no-rank games

PostPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 21:13
by Strategus
mort wrote:Maybe this is not true, but I might have noticed it as a trend; do we possibly do better in no-rank games because we take greater risks?
And if so, would not the same attitude work in ranked games?

I have noticed I have done better in games where I took on a surrendered position, with ratings shield. i believe you are right.

Re: no-rank games

PostPosted: 09 Jan 2018, 01:13
by Malarky
And here's the problem with playing for your rating...

Of course, there may be other reasons people tend to get better results in no rank games, such as people taking risks (or playing as if it doesn't matter) because the game isn't ranked and therefore finding themselves more readily eliminated. Or perhaps there's a tendency for the better players to play ranked games more often than no rank because they believe ranked games will be better games.

Then there is the likelihood that the more consistent players, with Ambassador status, will tend to play against other consistent players by choice because these tend to be more interesting games (I'm assuming; I was heading towards Ambassador status before my heart pretty much put a lengthy ellipsis on things, so I never actually reached it :( ). Are these games more likely to be ranked?

But I think there is a greater likelihood of play in ranked games being more protective, more about survival, simply because they affect ratings. There are certainly people on the site who admit to playing to improve their ratings.

But this tendency is there in sport, too. If you follow football (association football, that is) you'll recognise that, when the better teams play each other, the games are often dull affairs. Rather than the feast of footballing excellence you'd hope for, the two teams play more conservatively, being more wary of the strength of the opposition. Commentators like to call it 'respect', occasionally 'too much respect', but it's really being frightened of what the other team could do to you. So, rather than expressing themselves, they play to prevent the opposition expressing themselves.

Boxing can be similar. With some notable exceptions - Hagler v Hearns, for example - when two good boxers meet, the fight can take some time to get going. Each knows what the other is capable of so they aim to preserve themselves until they see how things are likely to go. However, in boxing, even in what looks like an equal contest, occasionally one fighter will sense the other is 'off' somehow and look to grasp an early, confidence-sapping advantage.

I do think, though, that if more people went into any game of Dip with the attitude that it's a one-off game, regardless of whether it is ranked or not, that games would be more dynamic. Play to win, don't play to improve your rating; the latter doesn't exclude the former.