I devised KinchRanks in May 2015 as a new system to rank all-round ability. Read all about it here, or visit the subpages for the latest rankings
1. For each event, you get a score of WR/PB x 100 (this will be in the range 0-100)
2. The average across your 18 scores is the final KinchRank score.
The “events” used are:
Averages for 3x3x3, 4x4x4, 5x5x5, 2x2x2, OH, Feet, Megaminx, Pyraminx, Square-1, Clock, Skewb, 6x6x6, 7x7x7.
Singles for 4bld, 5bld, Multibld
Averages or Singles for 3bld and FM (whichever is best for you)
If you haven’t done the event then of course you get 0 for that event.
For multibld, your result is adjusted to a single number Points + ProportionofHourLeft. At the time of writing, Marcin Kowalkcyk has a score of 41/41 54:14, which equates to 41.0961. Someone with e.g. 11 points in 45:00 would get (11+0.25)/41.0961 = 0.2737. This calculation ensures that more points always equals a better score, no matter the time spent. Less time spent still gives a better score.
Notes to help understanding
– Higher scores are of course better.
– If you’re WR holder, you’d get a score of 100 for that event (WR/WR x 100).
– No matter how slow you are, you will always get some score.
– Being double the WR gets you 50 for an event. Same in every event. Treble the WR would be 33.3 points.
– The maximum theoretical final score is 100, although you’d require WR in every event for that.
– For regional rankings, e.g. KinchRanks UK, the regional records are used as the benchmarks instead of the WR (basic calculation of NR/PB x 100).
– For country rankings, the NRs are used instead of PBs (basic calculation of WR/NR x 100).
Background and Reasoning
For a while I had been dissatisfied by the “Sum of Ranks” Single and Average calculation used to show an all-round ability. That’s not to say it’s a bad system, but I had in my mind that there were some underlying issues with it when trying to assess all-round ability.
After a few other attempts to eliminate the issues I had perceived, I think KinchRanks has finally hit the nail on the head.
Here are some things that I see as drawbacks of the current Sum of Ranks system:
1. There are 2 lists (single and average).
2. Not competing in an event can “kill” your ranking, even if you’re amazing at everything else (e.g. Feliks not doing feet, Vincent not doing 7x7x7 for ages).
3. Massive event biases. For example, you have to be really good at 3×3 to get high up. Bigbld barely matters in the slightest. This is due to the depth of events and the participation rates.
4. Personal improvement doesn’t always equate to any gains – indeed if you’re the World Record holder then there’s absolutely no chance of you gaining anything from improvement!
I believe my system has removed all 4 of these perceived issues, as explained:
1. There is one list, that uses a combination of averages and singles as appropriate.
2. No result in an event just means you don’t gain any points for it, rather that essentially losing an unlimited number of points.
3. All events have a score range 0 to 100 and are weighted equally in the final result. Your scores do not rely on how good anyone else is (apart from the WR that is the benchmark)
4. Every PB (in average or single as appropriate) gives you points!
What is the reasoning behind the use of averages and/or singles?
Averages are generally a better indicator of ability than singles, so those are used where available. For 3bld and FM, the average rankings are not yet established enough, so single ranks are allowed to be used instead if advantageous for a person. FM may be restricted to averages only in the future if the rankings reach a good point to do that.
Doesn’t gaining a second while near the WR gain you a lot more score than gaining a second while far away from it?
This is a good thing, as a second is much harder to cut off when near the WR!
Is it fair that everyone loses score when a new WR is set?
Yes I believe it is. The rankings are supposed to be equal across events, and to do that we must use benchmarks that are as equal in ability as each other. Think of a WR as a recalibration of the system. Over time, it should converge towards an even more equal system than it is currently!
Is FM a little easier to get a good score in?
Yes I believe it is slightly. This is due to the completely different nature of the event compared to the others. The effect is not thought to be big enough to warrant implementing an exception.
Are 2×2 and other short events a little harder to get a good score in?
Yes I think short events are generally a little harder to get good scores because the WR is likely to be a lucky average. Again, the effect is not thought to be a big one
Why are all the Multibld scores so low?!
Up your game everyone! If Maskow can managed 41 cubes, I’m sure if people put time into it like they do with other events, they could get good scores. Being able to 2/2 just means you’ve learnt 3bld and have some extra locations. Practising 3bld doesn’t count as practising Multibld, so I’m not concerned that 2/2 barely gets you anything 🙂
Why am I ranked much lower than I was in Sum of Ranks?
The most likely cause is that you practised events that have a lot of depth to them a lot (3×3, 2×2 being the biggest culprits). You used to be higher because it’s hard to get a low world ranking in those events, and many people were so far behind you in the rankings for them that their other events couldn’t make up for it.
Why am I ranked much higher than I was in Sum of Ranks?
There are 3 main causes for this.
Firstly, you are missing some events completely, and were massively penalised for it before with huge ranking scores.
Secondly, you are relatively good at events without much depth to them (bigbld and feet the biggest culprits). You didn’t gain much on anyone for your skill before, because others could just avoid them completely without a big penalty. Now you get a score for those events, and others get 0.
Thirdly, that pesky bad ranking in 3×3 no longer drags you down. Many people are very good at 3×3 but have a terrible world ranking because of the depth of the event.