1900+ group

After winning the 6th golem championship, lvf123 made it into the 1900+ group, that is the group that have reached or passed the 1900 point once or more.

I think that only passenger and eldorado have already achieved this incredible feat. Some other (like me) have never even reached 1800.

Congrats again.

tigis has already reached 1901 before.

and i seem to recall (but not sure) that Nostradamus also reached 19xx, but just like passenger, both milestones were reached while doing ratings manipulation experiments.

oh i forgot to say: MANY CONGRATULAIONS to lvf123! :) not just on 19xx but also on the very impressive win-loss record in the championship!

antkam, you are absolutely right. It's even in my outdated page (from Dec 2004) that Nostradamus has reached 1916 and tigis 1901. I don't recall whether they were both from experiments.

finally! i reach 1901!! :D :D :D :D

and not a moment too early, as i expect to lose another game very soon! but at least, i did not cheat! ;)

And now antkam has 1910! wow! congrats.

well done. my friend ;)

And after beating me, Antkam even reached 1919 a few minutes ago.

It will take some time for anybody to beat this rating!

Ypercube - nostradamus told it was no experiment, it was drawing lines.

tigis played normally.

Congratulations to you, antkam! Well-done!

My record - 1931 - from April is in danger!!! ;-))

nah, i lost a whopping 28 points in a regular time loss, now back to 18xx...

it was fun while it lasted though. :)

1932 - my new record, and soccer record but not for a long. p_a_k_o is coming.

Now I have 1945 !!! And there are coming another victories :) Will I reach 2000 ?? It's almost impossible to have such rating :)

p_a_k_o reached 1976 for about 5 seconds but that's incredible anyway! Will he make it to the unbelievable 2000?

I sure hope he does so I can get a lot of points when I take him down. :)

Pako attining 2000 is no significnt feat. He has over 80 open games. He's a manipultor of the system like all tht have come before him. Who cares how high he goes. It's a joke. Once before I played all my gmes down to zero and wound up with 1802. Right now I have 6 games to go and am at 1805. Cwali would be even higher. Show me the highest someone was with zero games to play and that's something to talk about.

joe, go on, check who has the highest score with 0 games left to play. you would be surprised.

I see no evidence that pako is manipulating the system as others have done. They deleberately delayed games they were losing and finish games that they were winning. So you could see they had a lot games at moves 48,49,50,51 where the loss was sure for them and didn't play for days and usually use also their vacation days.

I see nothing of the sort at pako's games. And 80 games are not that many! The only manipulation he uses is that he starts a lot of games (and finishes them as soon as possible) but he lately wins far more often that he loses. And his mean rating is about 1800-1850 so achieving a 100 or 150 more by playing many games is possible.

You're right about one thing though. If he does end all the games and reaches 0 where will his rating be? My prediction would be between 1850 and 1950. So I would never agree that it's a joke. And the definition at this thread is - I think - who has ever achieved 1900+ even for a brief period, not who has stayed constantly above 1900 (or 2000 ). That is - and we agree here - that is clearly another matter.

joe, i believe you did your homework.

just for the rest of us, the winner is, surprise, another polish player, luriusz. this guy has the highest ranking with 0 games at 1798.

how on earth did you establish this?

I don't say the point of _stopping playing_ as bloke state. p_a_k_o has 2001 points and he is an active player... if someone is not an active player, what does it mean?

joe argued that in order to establish who is the best player, we should look for "highest someone [is] with zero games to play" -- and that is luriusz

so is he the best player? no.

thus, ask joe what exactly is his point

Congratulations Gregorio. You're my new spanish idol in this game!

:D

Jordi, you were always my spanish idol in GWG :-D

2001!!! Jesus! And 88 games still open?!

It's out of this world!

Congrats!

Time to start an "2000+" thread...

What my point is that he has a bunch of games in the high 40's that are sure losses. Also the ones in extra time will also lose points as I have even won some of those and lost points. Just play those a lot slower and the rating can be infinite. But then those losses eventually get you. The only way to show all of those losses is to have 0 games open.

come on, joe, the point is that pako is not manipulating. he plays his game adamantly against me, and he might lose it (it is tied at 2-2 with 12 moves left). there is no slowing down, deliberately postponing the losses here, unlike in the case of the passenger and nosferatu experiments.

having a 100+ lead ahead of the second best ranked player certainly is untenable. he is going to lose lots of points and win the fraction of those points. but he has still many more winning games open than losing ones.

this time around ypercube is right that pako will very well settle around the 1900-mark with zero games open.

Didn't say he wouldn't be 1900, but he did manipulate to get to 2000, otherwise those losses would have been furiously finished as well as the wins.

joe -- are you saying (1) a 1900+ (or 2000+) rating is only valid if the player has finished every single game? or are you saying (2) the rating is still valid if the player has ongoing games but all those games are his opponent's turn to move?

if (1), then i am afraid i would never qualify for anything. i've been playing here for 2 years and i dont remember the last time when i have all games finished. i.e. i always have ongoing games (though of course very often none of them is my turn to move). i am just addicted, i guess...

if (2), then i think your position has certain validity to it, but as you pointed out, by slowing down some games it is possible to manipulate and still pass that test.

in other words, i think (1) would indeed eliminate all manipulation but is too stringent a test for many players to ever pass (even if they dont manipulate), whereas (2) is not useful as a test because it can still be manipulated. so IMHO, we ultimately simply have to make our own decision whether to trust some player's results. in this case, pako is a longtime, very good player, so i am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, although you did point out some issues and i know (from my own trip to 19xx) that the temptation to manipulate "just a little bit" is very very great indeed. :)

why dont we just ask pako? come on pako, you are among friends, and whatever you say, we all recognize your trip to 19xx as valid. so, did you manipulate "just a little bit" to get to 20xx? ;)

Antkam the answer to your question is #2, for myself I was just curious to see what I would settle in at so I finished all my games once before and am doing it again.

So i will tell something too. My last week was extraordinary. I won almost every game which i played: i dont know exactly how many games there were but i think that results were something like 30:3. I was wining 10 games and losing 1. And i didn't manipulate like Joe is telling. I reached 2000 and i didn't have any lose game which i could finish at that moment. So i had such rating without collecting lose games like did passenger or nostradamus(that was his nick?).I played very good and had many luck. Looser couldn't belive that he wins with others and lose almost everything with me :)

I wanted to reach 1900 and maybe i could make streetsoccer record. I made this but i was still winning every game and unexpected i reach 2000. Now i'm still winning many games but there are coming few losts and surely i will fall down under 2000 cause for win i get 2-3 points and lose 25-30 for lost game.

If i will have still so good form and luck i will at the end have 1900-1950 but there will be still some games cause i like playing soccer.

About manipulations. Yes, i manipulate a little bit. If i played with one player 2 games and had win and lose, first i lose than i win but i didn't wait more than few hours so there were no collecting lost games.Even that i were in - cause my opponent had less rating a take from me more points than i get for win. For me stupid rule is when i win match 4:1 and lose 4-5 points. Why?? In my opinion there should be 0 points for that.

ps. Joe if you are so good, try to reach 2000. You are telling that playing many games makes it easier?? Try to do that without colleceting lost games like passenger did. I think that you wouldn't reach even 1900 barier.

so far i defended your stance, pako...

but it is true that you were quick to make your moves against me when you had a good chance to finish off the game within regulation time, and when it did not work out, you stopped making moves. had you finished your game against me with the same speed as you did couple hours ago, you would not have the 2000+ rankings any longer (even a 1-4 would give me extra points i think).

so is this manipulation? yes, an innocent kind even joe would do :-)

bloke, you are wrong. I have so many games that i often play first with one person than with another but i don't play all day to finish game specially with you!!! If i stopped playing with you it doesn't mean that i saw a lose and went to another game. I have few games where my opponent is turn and they can win with high numbers.

On the other hand you can think what you want; I know how I play and won't explain oneself.

do not be offended, pako, i was on your side, if you did not happen to notice :D

by the way, check out the five 1s (ones) out of my last seven rolls :D

http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=410909

"It's a joke", said Joe. Looking at pako's chart I think he is right.

I don't think p_a_k_o was manipulating his rating at all... when you reach 2000 points every lose is a fast fall of points, whereas a win has almost no increment.

Furthermore, all my games with him were a played at normal pace, even if he was losing.

in any case, the stat graph testifies now that it could not have been more than yet another passenger-nostradamus experiment, although at a higher level.

bloke, can you give an argument for that? I don't really that anything testifies what you say. It's very hard to stand at that level, and any loss (luck is luck) means a lot of point decrease... My graph is similar and I didn't make any experiment.

It's obvious. If a loss equals 25 points give or take at that level then if you hold off on 4 you would bew at 1900 instead of 2000. Bloke had been defending him but said that Pako was playing really fast in his games with Bloke until Bloke tied it. So Pako didn't have the 10 or so games sitting at 50 or 51 moves but he quite a few in the high 40's or extra time that turned out to be losses. That is how he did it. Funny to see him in the mid 1700's after mouthing off.

Hey Pako, I've got 5 open games to go and am at 1815, and there doesn't appear to be a loss in the bunch. I invite you to do the same.

When I'm losing, I calculate quite accurately the chances of my opponent... It takes time, you know?

In go, I do the same: finish the won games, think the close games...

Joe,

1800 is easy to reach. I usually sit over this barier. You have 5 games with weak players which you will win. But on your rating chart we can see that first you finished your lost games or you have bad luck in that games?? :) Try to play more games and we will see if you don't fall down under 1800. 1 lose and you are there.

When i was at 2000 i lost 8 games, won 8 games and summary i lost about 160 points. Noone could stand on this level playing more new games.

I like playing so i won't have 5 games to finish like you.

Hey pako don't try to paint other people as manipulators, like you. I play the games when they come on my screen - win, lose or draw. I'm sure the 2 people rated 1665 don't consider themselves weak. The other 3 are in the 1500's so its not like these are 1300 players. Just keep obfuscating the truth, maybe you'll convince yourself, but from your posts you probably already have.

Tell more interesting things heheeh Joe the kid :)With Looser like reading your funny posts :)

Joe said: "I play the games when they come on my screen - win, lose or draw". You mean you don't think deeper on hard situations? Are you proud of it?

I don't see the point on questioning other people use of time. Like posts like "Bob is very sloooooow, it's so unfaaaaair".

At the moment, I didn't see any evidence of p_a_k_o being "experimental", and p_a_k_o has stated he is not. Enough for me.

Pako, played games very fast with me, both the winning and the lossing ones, he is a fine player.

1939 :) pr

5 games in progress:

In 2 I lead by 1 goal.

3 are equal and in extra time.

In 2 of these 3 games I scored the last goal. But those extra time games don't look good now.

At this moment there are 2 players above 1900 -- tigis at 1911 and p_a_k_o at 1909. Is this the first time we have 2 players above 1900 at the same time?

Also Matthew (the leader of the current championship) is at 1899, so if he continues we will have 3 players above 1900 at the same time!

Also, the top 9 are >1850. Will we get top 10 all >1850 soon? The rating inflation is really in full force!

finally I can join this exclusive club :-)

1957 ... my new record! And I think it will be increase!

:)