Item shared with you: ‘alltime_ratings.csv’

[Paul Keating (via Google Drive)]

Paul Keating shared an item Paul Keating (pjake...@gmail.com) has shared the following item: alltime_ratings.csv Open Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA You have received this email because pjake...@gmail.com shared a file or folder located in Google Drive with you.

[Stephen Dixon]

Thanks for this, Paul. Very, very much. The numbers are intriguing, but the best part, for me, was seeing so many names from way back in the early days.

What a remarkable institution this game is.

Steve Dixon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dixonary" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/autogen-java-0d39ae12-3123-496a-a84b-2c48f5a209e3%40google.com.

[nancygoat]

Could you share what this means? BTW, the "current ratings" only shows html for me.

[Paul Keating]

Steve,

That share message was a careless mistake on my part. I don't like to bother people when I grant them access to a file they might  one day want to see (but probably won't).

It happened because it's  a Google Drive default that I neglected to uncheck.

You will find a much nicer presentation of the same data on dixonary.net under Player Ratings.

One of the goals of the ratings project is to produce indications of skill that are comparable across time, so we can really see how we rate against greats of the past. All the usual measures are unsuitable for that, because they are sensitive to number of players in the round, or number of rounds played. Dan Widdis is the main man in that project, and it's  really him we have to thank.

P

[nancygoat]

I renew my request for an explanation of the meaning of the all-time dealer rating. Is a high score good or a low one? It looks like they run from a little over 24 to a little over 30.

[Paul Keating]

Nancy,

Briefly, higher is better, just as it is for player ratings. We don't produce dealer ratings for players until they have dealt 25 rounds. Provisional ratings, as with chess, are still under discussion.

There is also a proposal to scale both the ratings, like chess does, so that a known figure, say 1200, means average level.

The ratings project is not complete. There is a standing invitation for anyone interested to join the Dixonary Ratings group https://groups.google.com/g/dixonary-ratings where the discussions will explain more.

That may be a lot to read, but we are not yet at the point of producing a formal explanation. The best time to explain how something works is after you have built it, not while it's still under construction.

P

[nancygoat]

That makes sense actually. My score puts me in the bottom of the middle of the pack then, a place that seems correct.

Nancy

On Monday, July 20, 2026 at 1:59:05 PM UTC-5 Paul Keating wrote: