I'm a historian, so naturally the history of the 1v1 ladder interests me.

I didn't/don't want to play the 1v1 ladder. But out of respect for Impaller (who held the #1 spot for a year or longer) and Zaeban (who held the top spot for about 2 months and is the second most consistent 1v1 ladder player ever), I didn't want to allow players to manipulate the ratings to take the #1 spot without earning it.

If a player has done at least one of the following, I believe s/he has earned a #1 spot:
(a) has beaten at least three former #1 rated players;
(b) has beaten two #1s and has won a major 1v1 tournament;
(c) has beaten two #1s, including Impaller.

What do you guys think? Does the #1 spot have meaning? Does earning it matter? Does watering it down a bit take away from its meaning? Or does none of this matter?

Some History:

Former #1s:

Doushibag: beat 2 #1s (including Impaller twice)
Troll: beat 5 former #1s in only 50 games
Teddy: beat 5 former #1s
Impaller: beat 7-8 #1s, 1v1 tournament champion
HHH: beat 9-10 #1s, prolific 1v1 tournament champion
Fizzer: beat 6 #1s (including the most wins by anyone vs Impaller)
Mian: beat 5 #1s (including Impaller & HHH) in a short period
Retro: beat 2 #1s (including Impaller) in a short period, won membership in tournament
Ace: beat 4 #1s
Unknown: 1-3 vs #1s on the ladder in a short period, 1v1 tournament champion
Zaeban: beat 10 #1s (everyone except Doushi & Troll), 1v1 tournament champion
Lobstrosity: beat 3 #1s, won membership in tournament
Me: beat 6 #1s, won membership

Future #1s (my guesses):

Rubik: beat 3 #1s, tournament champion
Chaos: beat 1 #1
Zibik: beat 5 #1s, prolific 1v1 tournament champion
Chris: beat 5 #1s, won membership in a tournament
Window Cleaner: beat 4 #1s

Former #1:

Bytjie: beat 3 #1s (including Impaller), 1v1 tournament champion (including the most amazing performance in a double-elimination tournament I've ever seen: http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?TournamentID=1433)

My guess is you are counting only ladder victories over #1's? Also looking at the ladder and how long you've lasted on #1 spot it seems to me like it requires more a combination of effective picking and consistency against <1950 rated players than some abstract concept of 1vs1 skill...

yeah, only ladder wins are counted.

i'm bringing up the issue of 'earning' the #1 spot (as opposed to gaining it via manipulation). recently i postponed surrendering against windowcleaner bc i noticed their were two players who seemed to be manipulating the system (to get the top spot without earning it).

you seem to be referring to something else: how to keep the #1 spot. for that, i'd say their are three things needed: (1) be able to beat both stronger and weaker players; (2) have a little luck; (3) either play a lot of games (so the totality of your ability is reflected in your rating) or always have a loss expiring every now and then (to offset any losses you might incur). the expiring losses is more of a coincidental factor: ie, at the moment that your rating was high, you also happened to have losses expiring to provide further upward momentum.

The day you predict Chaos may be a future number one, he takes the top spot! Nice!

Congratulations Chaos.

For what it's worth, I think V could be there one day if he played enough ladder games.

More History:

The #1s and Their Ladder Records vs #1s, #2s & Zibik/Chris/Window (ZCW):

Doushibag: vs #1s (3-1), vs #2s (2-2)
Troll: vs #1s (5-4), vs #2s (3-4)
Teddy: vs #1s (6-13), vs #2s (13-7), vs ZC (1-1)
Impaller: vs #1s (14-16), vs #2s (23-7), vs W (2-0)
HHH: vs #1s (27-13), vs #2s (17-14), vs ZCW (3-3)
Fizzer: vs #1s (10-6), vs #2s (4-9), vs W (0-1)
Bytjie: vs #1s (4-11), vs #2s (11-7), vs C (0-1)
Mian: vs #1s (5-4), vs #2s (1-4), vs ZCW (1-2)
Retro: vs #1s (2-4), vs #2s (3-2), vs W (1-0)
Ace: vs #1s (5-10), vs #2s (8-9), vs C (1-0)
Unknown: vs #1s (1-3), vs #2s (4-0), vs ZC (1-1)
Zaeban: vs #1s (17-9), vs #2s (11-8), vs ZCW (1-2)
Lobstrosity: vs #1s (3-2), vs #2s (2-0), vs ZCW (1-2)
Me (Rich/Denzyman since Feb): vs #1s (10-7), vs #2s (7-2), vs CW (3-2)
Chaos: vs #1s (1-8), vs #2s (4-1), vs CW (1-1)

What's interesting is how dominant HHH and Zaeban have been vs #1s and how dominant Impaller has been vs #2s.

Take it for granted, I'll come back soon to a better level in the ladder, Guys ! Just give me time to get a fresh start eventually ;o)

And fyi, with all due respect to TI and a couple others, to me the most consistent and balanced player has to be HHH, while Chris had a terrific grow and may be the most underrated right now.

|> Recently i postponed surrendering against windowcleaner bc i noticed their were two players who seemed to be manipulating the system (to get the top spot without earning it).

Wait, so, you manipulated the system to punish two players who you thought were manipulating the system. Is that right?

I'm in favor of any #1 player keeping any #2 player from becoming #1 if the #2 player didn't 'earn' it, even if that means the #1 player must resort to the tricks the #2 player uses. Why? Because if each player 'earns' it, the #1 spot has more meaning and doesn't become watered down.

An example: Player A has 2-3 losses but doesn't surrender. His rating is thus near 2100. The #1 player earned his way to #1. His rating is just above 2100. He is about to lose. Player A is a historically weaker player who hasn't beaten many top players and isn't very consistent. The #1 player is recognized as a top player. Should the #1 player surrender immediately and let the obviously weaker player pad his stats? Or should he postpone one game's loss to protect the integrity of the ladder?

I kept one player from padding his stats. Had I paid more attention, I could've kept another from padding his stats. I think it is pretty clear who has 'earned' the top spot and who hasn't.

So who has clearly earned the top spot and who hasn't? I am curious who these unnamed stat-padders are, I guess I do not pay enough attention to the ladder.

I think that he means Rubik and Chaos, Rubik just took a group of losses in a row that he was clearly avoiding, and Chaos left the ladder to let losses drop off without risking more losses, then came back as soon as his rating was enough for #1.

I guess Chaos being 1-8 against #1s bothers Gui.

I see. Slightly off topic, but speaking of ladder history, how often do all top players have a rank over 2000? Seems like a pretty tight field, regardless of specific players padding.

That seems more of an issue of how many of the top players are on the ladder at any given time. If you bother to search through the various players who are not participating, there may be as many as 15-20 players who have a rating of 2000+. A week or so back a large number of them left the ladder, meaning that people with ratings under 2000 were ranked as high as 7-8 or higher. If all of the players with high rating played at once, then the top 10 would always be 2000+ and most of the top 20 probably would be as well.

That's not even including the people who no longer play the ladder but were quite good, such as The Impaller and Doushibag.

And yes, I do pay too much attention to the ladder.

Thanks Duke of Ben, your vigilance counters my ignorance quite well.

I just did a quick count, and there are about 15 players with 1975+ ratings currently, that I could find games for. There are likely a couple more who haven't played recent games but still maintain a strong rating.

There are quite a few other players who used to have a high rating, but haven't played recently enough to maintain a rating at all. So, easily 20-30 players who have hit and maintained at or above 2000.

I'm almost certain he doesn't mean Rubik and Chaos.

|> I guess Chaos being 1-8 against #1s bothers Gui.

I'd have to say being knocked down in both the 1v1 ladder and the 2v2 ladder bothers him. I know it'd bother me.

I dont care about the rankings, I join/play when I have time and leave when I get bored or RL reasons. I,m not claiming anything about being top ranked in ladder. As said before, there are many good players out there. Also using only ladder games to analyse who's truly great is very narrow-minded imho. I've beaten my share of so called #1 and I've lost against solid players nobody talks about.

Chaos for Chairman! Rule Warlight with an iron fist!