of those I've played, I've only ever had difficulty vs slejer, ottarin, zibik, denzy man, john tack, lesny and marcinek. If there is someone whom is clearly better than the rest, it's probably one of them

Ohh, anata, you've clearly never played Duke, Ruthless or Impaller.

Or me. :D

I agree with Matma, although i have never played them on a smaller scale, and perhaps Doushi, although again never played on a smaller scale.

if there was only a ladder system or other ranking mechanism...

It depends how you define the question. I agree with Ruthless's assessment :). In all seriousness though, there are about 8 people that I would consider "elite" and usually for different reasons. I will not name them all. Duke is amazing but extremely mathematical. He tends to rarely give up a lead in a 1 vs 1 but will usually surrender if behind faster than I suspect he should. Impaller is well-rounded and great but beatable. Ruthless and Gaia from what I have seen are the best at scrambling. They think outside the box and have proven capable of overcoming income disadvantages early in games. Fizzer I have never beaten ( ~ 0-5) but that just may be due to an intimidation factor. There are three more but I will leave those to mystery. I don't want to kiss ass and stroke too many ego's as I often play with these "power-players" lots and as we all know - there is a heavy psychological factor to 1 vs 1.

Player to watch out for in the future: Nuckluck.

I played nuck luck some time ago.. he was pretty good, but wouldn't consider him elite at the time i played him..

and i know a fair bit of good players that i think surrender too quickly, sometimes that can be used to your advantage in a 1v1 environment...

this game doesn't require you to be extremely mathematical. It's rather straight forward. More basic than complex. The absolute best player can lose against a clueless player as dictated by starting position and rng ^^

a good player can beat a clueless player with an understanding of the combat system, and how to properly use orders.. can't rememeber the number of times I've played with near 0 luck where i should of lost *like 15 armies/turn against 10 armies/turn* but ended up winning because i managed to properly place my orders in a way that they wasted their excess armies

I meant to say with a worse starting location *

I don't think the game is terribly mathematical, but it's definitely logical, somewhat psychological, and there is a good bit of skill involved. A good player is not going to lose to a bad player almost ever, assuming you're playing a game with manual picks and low luck--essentially taking out as much of the "random" factor as you can.

There are a lot of really strong players, and everyone has a distinct playstyle. Some players I never lose to, other players I struggle to beat every time we play. A lot of that is playstyle and intimidation. Duke does play a very mathematical game. I feel like he excels in gaining early advantages and pressing them until he wins, whereas he has difficulty when he is forced to interact a lot with his opponent in the first 2 turns of the game. Gaia plays a very solid all-around game. It's difficult to trick her or get her to give up ground, but I do think you can predict how she's going to play if you figure out her style. Ruthless and Fizzer are both very aggressive players and create difficult situations where you have to try to defend multiple spots and hope you guess right, but if you can stymie their early aggression then you can usually win with a solid resource advantage. If not, you lose. I find a lot of my games against these two are more or less decided by turn 4 or 5. Blue Precision used to be someone I beat every single time we played, but no more is that the case. I think there may have been some intimidation there until he rattled off a few in a row against me. When he beats me it tends to be done through gaining a superior positional advantage and then slowly grinding out a win by forcing me to be the aggressor, something I typically prefer not to be. There are a lot of other players as well with distinct styles, but it's tough to name them all. Pinkbladder, Waya when he used to play, and Nathin are also players who pretty much always give me a tough game and are able to take advantage of my playstyle, either by exploiting my tendencies or making unpredictable plays.

There are a lot of good players who I've never played, so I will have to see about them.

I've got to say that my favourite player is the AI.

Peace.

I must say I agree with the Impaller's comprehensive post.

-Waya

hmm... waya is here.. didn't think he frequented these forums anymore...

If the two current games on profile are not stuck ones from before then I'm really glad to see that Waya is back.

waya must be back. he changed his name back from "waya- retired"

The players who give me the most difficulty are Gaia, Ruthless and Impaller. There are loads of other players who beat me often (including all the ones listed above), but I don't think more than half the time. And loads of strong players I've yet to play 1x1. Ruthless's tournament of 1x1 champions has been an eye opener on the theory that a really good player will only win slightly more often than an average player (say 60/40, typical for Backgammon - ignoring skill with a doubling cube). Knowing all the 21 participants are very strong players, I predicted the winner would lose at least 3 out of 20 and probably 4 or 5, and the average player would go about 50/50. It hasn't worked out that way so far. It appears to be shaking out in a way that's indicative of who's better (like a ladder).

Thanks to everyone who listed me as a top challenger. The description of me as highly mathematical is deceptive. I enjoy optimizing every move to get the best odds on defense and offense and I like to expand in the most efficient way possible -- which is all math based -- but I think I become very unpredictable the more you play me 1x1 (ask Ruthless). I struggle the most playing another good player 1x1 for the first time, when I have no insight into how they like to play.

If there's one skill Imp and I exploit (he's better at it) that some otherwise excellent players ignore or underutilize, it's intelligence gathering. Reviewing the history a lot, checking picks everytime, looking at all deployment information over time and comparing it to bonuses, using attack results to determine stack size when fogged, etc. When I really care about a game, I get into trying to figure out what other players are doing and strategize accordingly. Not just attack/defense strategy, but big picture. Imp is excellent at it and, unlike me, doesn't forget it when his opp's take days between moves.

Incidentally, while I thought my typical game is to gain an early income advantage and then grind out a victory, that has not been the case in the 1x1 tournament -- I've fallen behind in income in almost every match in the first 5 turns, but turned it around. When I reviewed all the games I won, I was surprised to discover that I thoguht I was losing at one point in the early game in most of them. I do surrender the moment I think I've lost, I get very invested in games and hate to lose, but the moment the game ends it's forgotten, so I prefer to just rip the bandaid off and move on. Maybe that cost me a couple of possible comebacks, who knows.

I'm happy to take 1x1 challenges with zero luck, at least a day per turn and manual picks.

hm, would be great if Waya was back. I wish I could have added him to my Round Robin tournament.

Waya is playing in our 5x5 tournament now. Were still a man down (Mindgrapes), but Waya is defeinitely back.

Private parts!!!

I would say many guys I like playing w/ but not in opponent team. Think of Myhandisonfire and Dominator... actually too many to mention. Huangzhu is good as well as he is sitting next to me when playing in office :))))) can make perfect orders together.