2014 Stats

[Morbius]

Once again I've been obsessively recording my rosettes in 2014, and I'm happy to report that I managed a 44% improvement on last year.  In 2014 I got a total of 373 rosettes (204 standard, 119 Challenge and 50 10-letter).  Aiming for 400+ in 2015!

Alan, a suggestion for those of us interested in comparisons:  Would it be possible to publish lists of, say, the top 20 rosette-getters for the year for each puzzle and overall? 

[pat]

These statistics are obviously very important to you, Morbius, so I'm wondering if a list of the top 20 rosette-getters would be somewhat meaningless, given the general consensus of opinion that we don't all play by the same rules. How disappointed you might be if, say, you failed to make the top 20, but if there were some way of removing the 'cheats' you might be at number 14. How disappointed would you be if you realistically expected to come top of the class, only to find that you came 5th because the four above you had access to the answers during the exam?

[Morbius]

I take your point, Pat, but I already know my personal rankings thanks to the stats Alan already provides, so I'm not going to be disappointed.  I accept that it isn't a level playing field and different people play in different ways.  That doesn't really bother me.  I also know I'm never going to be anywhere near the top of the rankings (unless I start using 'aids').  I'm more interested in knowing how I compare with those players around the same level as me.  This is more out of curiosity than anything else.  I see a top 20 list as being a logical extension of the daily scoreboards, which allow us to compare on a puzzle-by-puzzle basis.

[Alan W]

I have some reservations about this idea, Morbius. Would it perhaps encourage invidious comparisons between players, insinuations about how people got as many rosettes as they did, etc?

An alternative might be to provide a table or chart that shows how many rosettes were achieved by each player, but without identifying any players. So, if you were ranked at 18th, with 200 rosettes, you could see whether the player just ahead of you had 201 rosettes or 290, but without any indication of who that player is.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has any thoughts about this.

Incidentally, I'll be putting the data for December into the player stats in the next day or two, so the complete results for 2014 will be available.

[Morbius]

What you propose would be interesting, Alan, though not as interesting as knowing who the players are.  And I don't think people need too much encouragement to speculate about other people's scores!  Nonetheless, I concede that not everyone would be as interested in comparative stats as I am.  The stats you already provide are great.  Anything extra would be a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

[Tom44]

And despite an explanation from Alan, the stats still don't make any sense to me.  I look at mine but it just does not parse out for me.  But I will suggest not revealing names to the world is probably the correct way to go.  Just because a person generates statistics does not automatically mean the person is OK with everyone knowing those stats.

[Alan W]

The player statistics for 2014 are now complete, so everyone can see their totals for the year, even if they haven't been keeping records like Morbius!

Just a reminder, for those who haven't looked at the statistics recently, or at all, that there are two ways to get to the Player Statistics page: by clicking a button at the top right of the Player Details panel, or by following a link shown near the bottom of the Chihuahua home page.

[mkenuk]

I'm not really sure that 'league tables' or 'rankings tables' such as are used in professional sports such as football, tennis or golf are really appropriate to Chi. Chi is not a competitive game; as has been said many times, everybody plays by different rules, at different times of the day and for different lengths of time.

I rather suspect, Morbius, that, like me, you have identified a small number of regular players who are at about the level as you and who, like you, play the game without the use of 'aids' as you call them. Like me, while playing you try to keep an eye on these players' performance and keep up with them (but use them as pace-setters rather than competitors).

 I also suspect that if we were to compare our lists of names, they would be remarkably similar!

I've no objection at all to you knowing my rosette count for 2014 (I'm fairly sure I'd be one of the names on your 'little list') so, courtesy of Alan, : S - 161, C -107, 10 - 45 Tot 313, overall ranking 19.

Good luck with your quest for 400.

MK

 

[Morbius]

Thanks MK.  Yes, you're definitely on my little list of players at a similar level with whom I like to compare.  In business, you'd call it 'benchmarking'. 

[rogue_mother]

I'm perfectly willing to play "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours." In terms of rosettes, in 2014 my count was S - 161 (rank 25), C - 125 (rank 14), T - 57 (rank 15), All games - 343 (rank 17). In terms of percentages, my rankings are much lower: S - 44.1% (rank 153), C - 34.2% (rank 51), T - 15.6% (rank 38), All games - 31.3% (rank 182). I do have a top ranking in one category -- games played. I am number one on each puzzle. Apparently there is no one who has played more puzzles than me. I don't doubt that I share this ranking with several other players.

My big goal in the game is not to get rosettes, although I am not above trying for them. As he well knows, my aim is to get a higher score than roberts (and vice versa). Failing that, I am satisfied to make it to the Maven level. I think I would rather not know how often roberts gets ahead of me; for me it's the journey, not the destination. That said, M & M, I do use both of you as benchmarks while the game is in progress in cases where finding the words seems to be too much of a slog.

I agree with Alan that any published rankings should be anonymous. There is already too much sniping in the Forum about how some people play or are suspected of playing. I would find his proposed alternative highly satisfying.

[Linda]

I can't even remember how to access my stats!  Anyway, no matter, it is of little importance to me.  I do find though that my score is usually around that of Pat, Vizal and Dave - good enough, I think!

Oh, by the way, Happy New Year everyone. 

[pat]

I can't even remember how to access my stats! 

I don't think I ever have! I'm with you on the level of importance, Linda. And a happy new year to you, too.