JP2008251014A - Web system for evaluating competition capability - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide an objective competition capability evaluation system capable of collecting data of results of games that have been held in various locations via the Internet, relating the result data with each other, and enabling competitors who have never met before to compare their skill levels by using common indexes. <P>SOLUTION: This web system calculates skill levels of game participants from data of results of individual games collected via the Internet and displays the result of calculation. Specifically, this invention relates to a server system, a client system, and a computer program which are constituents of the web system. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2009,JPO&INPIT

Description

The present invention relates to a player ability evaluation system using the Internet.

It is difficult to evaluate the ability of individuals and teams related to competitions, martial arts, and games for competing for wins, losses and rankings with opponents, using objective figures such as speed competitions. Recently, a system that evaluates abilities by exchanging points by winning or losing ratings in some competitions has been operated, but the reliability of evaluation is ensured by using direct competition between system participants and other evaluation methods. As a result, it is necessary to limit the target competition and its participants to the top level, and there are limited opportunities for general amateur athletes with the largest competitor population to benefit from it. There is a problem of end.

The idea of providing game information to general amateur athletes using the Internet to increase competition opportunities can be seen in Patent Documents 1 and 2, but it is merely a collection of information and objective observation of the ability of athletes. There is no way to evaluate automatically. In the present invention, by correlating the results of individual matches held in various regions without limiting the competition, it is possible to compare the skills with a common index even among those who have no direct match opportunity The purpose is to provide a simple ability evaluation system.
JP2002-140425A JP2002-215948

Web system that collects game result data of individual games played in various regions via the Internet, and calculates and displays performance evaluation points of game participants from the accumulated data related to the game result data Specifically, a server system, a client system, and a computer program that are components of the web system.

The score basically increases when a participant wins or ranks higher in the game. If the score before the game starts is superior to the opponent, the increase is small, and if the score is inferior, the score increases. The amount will increase, decrease by defeat or lower ranking, and if the evaluation score before the match is superior to the opponent, the decrease will be large and if it is inferior, the decrease will decrease And

The amount of increase / decrease of the evaluation points varies depending on the evaluation score reliability of the game participants, the increase / decrease amount of those with relatively high reliability is small, and the increase / decrease amount of small players is large, The number of opponents (first layer) of the game participants before the start of the game, the number of opponents (second layer) of the opponents, and the number of opponents (third layer) of the second layer opponents The evaluation is based on the size of the number of opponents in each layer as defined below.

In addition, the amount of increase / decrease of the evaluation points varies depending on the content of the game, and the amount of increase / decrease is small for close matches, and the amount of increase / decrease for large differences is large. Alternatively, the evaluation is made based on the magnitude of a difference, a ratio or difference in the number of acquired sets, a ratio or difference in required time, and the like.

The new evaluation score is calculated by averaging the increase / decrease amount of the evaluation score obtained as a result of a certain number of games in the past in order to avoid a sudden increase / decrease.

In competitions that are performed in a multiple-to-multiple manner and compete for individual skills, each team member's individual evaluation points and reliability are almost totaled (required), and the results of the game are used to determine the evaluation score, reliability, and game content. The amount of increase / decrease in the evaluation score as a team is distributed according to the reliability of each member.

In competitions, etc. that are performed by three or more players and compete for individual skills, each participant considered that they played a one-on-one match at the same time, and the first-ranked winner won each individual match with all other participants. The amount of increase / decrease in accordance with the evaluation score, the evaluation score reliability, and the game content is calculated for each of them, and the total is distributed.

An objective ability evaluation system is provided based on the results of individual matches held in various regions without limiting the competition, and many general athletes can easily participate in the evaluation system, improving their skills. By providing an environment that can be used for goal setting and where players who have no direct competition opportunities can compare their skills using common indicators and seek opponents, the overall level of competitive ability can be improved. It can be expected to contribute to the spread of competition.

The present invention relates to a server system and a client system (including mobile phone terminals, video equipment and mobile terminals connectable to the Internet, etc.) and a computer program in a client server system environment using the Internet, and the server system requests from the client system. When received, the client system has a function of transmitting a web page to the client system, and the client system can display the web page using a web browser or the like. FIG. 1 shows an overall configuration diagram of the web system of the present invention.

In FIG. 1, the server system is set up in a state where the computer program can be executed, and a database is installed in a storage device. In addition, communication with a client system is possible via the Internet, and a program regular activation function is provided to automatically activate the computer program at predetermined intervals. In the client system, a client PC illustrated as an example has a web browser, an input device, and a display device, and can communicate with the server system via the Internet. Similarly, a mobile phone terminal shown as an example of a client system similarly has a web browser, an input device and a display device (not shown), and is connected to a mobile phone base station by radio waves and can communicate with a server system via the Internet. It has become. The computer program uses the program execution function of the server system to transmit various web pages including the extracted data from the database in response to a request from the client system, receives the input data from the client system, performs necessary processing, and performs the necessary processing. And periodically access the database to collect data to be processed, perform calculations, and store the processed data again.

The web page has a member registration function for the ability evaluation system according to the present invention, and a person who wants to receive ability evaluation can use the function to register as a member from the client system.
In addition, the web page has a match result input form with a member ID (identifier) password verification function, and the member arbitrarily selects regardless of whether or not the ability evaluation system operator manages it. The member can input the game date, the opponent's name, the game result, etc. of the executed game. Furthermore, it is also possible to add a check function by the opponent to the web page, thereby improving the reliability of the input game result data.

The input or checked data is sent to the server system in response to a transmission instruction, and the server system calculates a new ability evaluation score related to the game of the participant together with the past game result data related to the game participant. save. The server system displays the updated capability evaluation point and related information on a web page transmitted to the client system in accordance with a request from the client system.

In this way, everyone can use a common ability evaluation system via the Internet, so that athletes scattered in various regions can objectively evaluate their competitive ability on a common scale. Is possible.

The registered game result data is subjected to a calculation process of ability evaluation points of the game participants using the following calculation formula examples by the server system and the previous term computer program.

Ds: Amount of increase / decrease in ability evaluation points, K: coefficient, Wr: winning points, We: expected win rate Here, coefficient K represents the strength of the degree of influence that each game result has on the amount of increase / decrease in ability evaluation points. It is determined as appropriate in consideration of differences in game frequency. The winning point Wr is 1 when winning, 0 when defeating, and 0.5 for the draw.

The expected win rate We indicates the probability that the player wins the opponent based on the evaluation points of the opponent and the opponent, and it is preferable to apply a logistic function with the difference between the two evaluation points as a variable. .

Where Ro: opponent's pre-game score, Rs: own pre-game score

FIG. 2 shows a graph of Equation 2. The horizontal axis is the difference Rs-Ro between the evaluation points of the opponent and the opponent, and the vertical axis is the expected win rate We. As can be seen from the figure, the above formula shows that a small win rate is expected for opponents with large evaluation points, and a large win rate is expected for opponents with small evaluation points. It is a function with a good prospect that the winning rate can be expected to be just 75% for 200 opponents and just 90% for -400 opponents.

According to the formulas 1 and 2, the evaluation point basically increases when the participant wins the game, and if the evaluation point before the start of the game is superior to the opponent, the increase amount is small. If you are inferior, the amount of increase will increase, will decrease by defeat, and if the evaluation score before the match is superior to your opponent, the decrease will be large, if it is inferior, A capability evaluation system characterized by the fact that the amount of decrease is reduced is established.

The calculated new score is processed together with related information into ranks by age, region, etc., and displayed on a web page transmitted to the client system at the request of the viewer.

The present invention provides an index of evaluation score reliability that is roughly proportional to the abundance of game experience with many opponents as a means that enables this evaluation system to be developed quickly and widely as a common scale.

This means that the amount of increase or decrease of the evaluation points varies according to the evaluation score reliability of the game participants, the increase or decrease of those who have relatively high reliability is small, and the increase or decrease of small players is large Therefore, it is effective to promptly optimize the evaluation points of low competitors based on the evaluation points of highly reliable athletes. As a result, it is expected that the overall evaluation including new participants and local scattered athletes will quickly converge to an appropriate value.

P1 is the number of opponents that the player has directly played against (referred to as first-tier opponents), and the opponents that each first-tier opponent has directly played before the time when the player has played against the first-tier opponents ( The total number of second-tier opponents is called P2, and the opponent who the second-tier opponent played directly before the first-tier opponent played against the second-tier opponent (called the third-tier opponent) ) Is given as P3, and the same is applied to the evaluation score reliability Cs of the principal by the following formula.

Here, Q is a real number smaller than 1, and n is an integer, both of which are appropriately determined by the manager according to the competition event. For example, if the average number of opponents of each competitor is about 10, if the Q is less than 0.1, the above equation will converge as it goes higher and n will be set to a finite value that can ignore higher-order terms it can. In the above equation, Q is a constant value and is sequentially raised to a power. However, it is possible to appropriately set a coefficient to be applied to each term. Here, the number of opponents means the number of opponent teams in the case of team competition, and if there are multiple matches like doubles and you want to obtain individual evaluation points, The number of individuals and their partners is preferred. In addition, it is possible to determine the evaluation score reliability Cs only by the number of first-tier opponents, or it can be determined by the number of games played by the person or the game frequency, or a combination of each. It is also possible to do. It is also possible to set the validity period according to the time when the points that are the basis for calculating the evaluation point reliability Cs are acquired, and to reduce the evaluation point reliability of members who have decreased their activity level. Will be effective.

Next, a reliability coefficient F defined by a difference (ratio) between evaluation points reliability of the opponent and the opponent is introduced, and Co: opponent evaluation point reliability, Cs: own evaluation point reliability An example is shown in.

Here, as an example, F is the third root of Co / Cs, but it is up to the operator to decide how effective the reliability is, and the difference or ratio of evaluation point reliability is used. Other formulas are also applicable. The point of judgment is that the evaluation points of small group members who have contact with the large group (who played a match with that member) are smoothly adjusted to the large group criteria, and at the same time the evaluation point fluctuations are too intense and small It is to be suppressed to the extent that it does not cause group member rejection. By multiplying the right side of Equation 1 by this coefficient, the amount of increase or decrease in the ability evaluation point is as follows.

In other words, the amount of increase / decrease is increased when playing against opponents with high reliability, the amount of increase / decrease is reduced when playing against low opponents, and the value is doubled for opponents with a reliability ratio of 8 times In the case of a partner with a reliability ratio of 1/8, it becomes 1/2. As a result, the evaluation points of the athletes who are in a large group and are playing with many athletes are not subject to large fluctuations, so that the overall evaluation system is stabilized and acceleration of optimization is obtained.

In calculating Formula 3, it is necessary to decide a processing method when there are multiple battles with the same person. First of all, if you are fighting with the same opponent multiple times, you should not increase the number of first-tier opponents for each match in order to avoid improper input intended to earn evaluation score reliability. Rather, it is appropriate to add only the difference between the number of opponents in the second layer and below against the previous battle.

In addition, it is naturally anticipated that the same player will be counted multiple times as an opponent for the second and lower layers of the player. In this case, it does not matter whether it is duplicated or not, and it makes sense to leave it to the operator's choice.

Even if it is the same person, if the idea is that the association will be strengthened and the evaluation score reliability will be improved based on the results of the match with different opponents, the overlap of opponents below the second tier will be included Should be adopted. In that case, when processing the game result data, the number of opponents for each layer is directly inquired from the opponent's database, and the processing is performed by adding one level down to the opponent number database for each layer. become.

FIG. 3 exemplifies the battle history data for each player in the above example, and is also an example of member ability evaluation point data displayed on the web page transmitted to the client system. In this example, the opponent ID 256710 playing a game on May 15, 2006 and the result of the game are reflected in the case where the game was played again on January 23, 2007.

The table is divided into pre-match data at the top and post-match data at the bottom. The opponent's identification number (ID), ability evaluation point (Ro), own ability evaluation point (Rs), and the corresponding match as pre-match data. The expected win rate (We) for the opponent and the number of opponents for each layer, which is the basis of the evaluation point reliability of the opponent, are registered from 1 to 4 layers. These opponent data are copied from the opponent's battle history data, and their expected win rate is calculated from both data.

The post-match data includes the score (Wr) of the game result and the detailed points, the evaluation point increase / decrease amount (Ds) calculated from the result of the game, and the increase / decrease amount obtained from a certain number of game results in the past. A new evaluation score (Rs) obtained by averaging and the number of players in each tier who are updated as the basis of their own evaluation score reliability are registered.

Here, since this opponent is the second match, the numerical value reflected in the number of opponents of each layer is only the difference. That is, since the first layer has already been played, it remains 9 (shown in bold numbers in FIG. 3, the same applies to the following), and the second layer has the difference of 8-5 = 3 of the opponent's first layer added to 80. 83, the third layer is similarly 95-40 + 800, 855, and the fourth layer is similarly 847-320 + 8000, 8527. In this way, the battle history data for each competitor is updated.

On the other hand, it is possible to take the concept of emphasizing the connection and the expansion of the number of opponents as real existence. In that case, it is necessary to take a measure that does not include the same person as an opponent. Therefore, when processing the game result data, it is necessary to inquire each ID of each layer opponent connected to the first layer opponent from the database and collate with the ID of the opponent who has already been counted. It should be noted that the ID data of each player of each layer may be copied to the player history data for each player, or may be referred back to each layer player who is connected to the first layer opponent from the database each time. Both have the disadvantage that the load on the server system becomes heavier than in the above example.

The following formula shows an example in which the amount of increase / decrease in the evaluation points is changed according to the game content.

Here, G is called the scoring rate, and is a coefficient that changes according to the content of the game. The following formula can be applied: G = winner's score / (winner's score + loser's score)

In the above example, there is no difference in the G value between the case of 10 to 0 and the case of 1 to 0, so the close rate may not be expressed accurately depending on the competition. In such a competition, there is also a method of calculating by taking the ratio between the two after adding a minimum number, for example, one point, to eliminate a special number of 0.

The scoring rate is not limited to the number of points in one game, but in the case of tennis, the number of sets may be the target, and a competition-specific evaluation index can be adopted. By introducing the concept indicating the degree of closeness, it is expected that more appropriate ability evaluation can be performed even with a small number of matches.

The following formula shows an example of calculating a new evaluation point Rs [n] by averaging the amount of increase / decrease obtained as a result of the last n matches.

Here, Rs [1] is an evaluation score at the start of the nth previous game, Ds [1] is an increase / decrease in evaluation score based on the result of the previous game, Ds [2] is an evaluation score based on the result of the next game The increase / decrease amount, Ds [n], is the increase / decrease amount of the evaluation score based on the result of the most recent (one-time previous) game. Even if the coefficient K is set to a large value by this averaging process, it is possible to prevent the evaluation score from fluctuating from one game to another and to obtain an appropriate ability evaluation quickly.

The description of Examples 1 to 5 has basically been given by taking a one-on-one match as an example, but the meaning is conceptually a team-to-team match in addition to a one-on-one match. Is included. In that case, individual evaluation points for team members are not required. On the other hand, there may be cases where it is desired to individually handle the evaluation points and reliability of each team member in a multi-to-multiple competition. Even in that case, it can be developed as follows without changing the basic structure of the present invention.

The team members are summed up for each of the evaluation points, and the expected winning rate of the team is obtained from equation (2). Next, the “opponent” of the reliability coefficient F defined by the difference (ratio) of the evaluation point reliability between the opponent and the principal in Example 3 is read as “match participant other than myself” and applied. That is, Equations 2 and 4 are expanded as follows.

Here, the symbols are: Ro1: partner 1 evaluation point, Ro2: partner 2 evaluation point, Rp: partner evaluation point, Co1: partner 1 reliability, Co2: partner 2 reliability, Cp: partner trust Degree.

For example, it is assumed that the evaluation score and reliability of the partner who is a member of the team 1 and himself and the members 1 and 2 of the team 2 are as follows, and the team 1 wins as a result of the match. When the evaluation points are Rp = 1500, Rs = 1000, Ro1 = 1300, Ro2 = 1100, team 1 = 2500 and team 2 = 2400. The reliability is Cp = 30, Cs = 10, Co1 = 20, and Co2 = 10.

Using Equation 8 and finding the expected win rate We for Team 1 against Team 2,
We = 1 / (1 + 3 ^ ((2400-2500) / 200)) = 0.634

Next, using Equation 9 to find your confidence coefficient,
F = ((30 * 20 * 10) ^ (1/3) / 10) ^ (1/3) = 1.22

Using Equation 5 and obtaining the evaluation point increase / decrease amount with K = 32, the following is obtained.
Ds = 1.22 * 32 * (1-0.634) = 14.3

It goes without saying that this method is also effective in the fourth embodiment in which the amount of increase or decrease in the evaluation points varies depending on the content of the game, and it is also possible to use mathematical expressions other than the numbers 8 and 9 given as an example. As for the increase in reliability, the method described in the third embodiment is applied as it is by replacing “the opponent” with “a participant other than the player”, and “partners 1 and 2 of the team 2 and the members 1 and 2” It can be regarded as an “opponent” and calculate the number 3 to obtain each new reliability.

In competitions where three or more players compete for individual rankings and scores, it is assumed that each participant played a one-on-one match at the same time, and the first- Assuming that all the games have been won, the evaluation score for each, the evaluation score reliability, and the increase / decrease amount corresponding to the content of the game are calculated and the total is allocated, and the total calculated in the same way is also allocated for the second and subsequent players The

For example, three players A, B, and C participate in a competition for scoring. A gets 500 points, B gets 300 points, C gets 200 points, A gets 1st, B gets 2nd, and C gets In the third place, A plays B and wins with a scoring rate G = 500 / (500 + 300) and plays with C at the same time and wins with scoring G = 500 / (500 + 200). If it is considered that the player has won with a score rate G = 300 / (300 + 200), all of the first to sixth embodiments described above can be applied.

For a new participant of this ability evaluation service according to the present invention who does not have a fixed ability evaluation point, the provisional value determined for each competition is used as the ability evaluation point. In the period in which the new participant participates in the period until the predetermined number of games and / or evaluation score reliability meets certain conditions, increase / decrease of the evaluation score to the participants of the game The evaluation point increase / decrease amount is calculated for each game according to the calculation means described in Examples 1 to 7 only for the new participant, and the total of the period is obtained. The ability evaluation score that is closest to the value can be set as the determined ability evaluation score.

A method for obtaining a concretely determined ability evaluation score will be described using the equations 1 and 2 described in the second embodiment.

Formula 1 indicates that the evaluation point increase / decrease amount becomes 0 when the winning point (actual winning rate) = the expected winning rate. Therefore, Rs where the total points won and the total expected winning percentage match (ΣWr−ΣWe = 0) is the ability evaluation score to be obtained.

Since We in Equation 2 is a monotonically increasing function of Rs, finding Rs where ΣWr−ΣWe is closest to 0 is easy to find by substituting candidates into Rs sequentially using IF syntax and narrowing down. Can do.

By adopting this method, the number of games required for assigning appropriate evaluation points to new participants can be significantly reduced. However, as can be seen from Equation 1, Wr is 1 or 0 and ΣWr-ΣWe = 0 cannot be obtained while the new participant continues to win or lose during the period, so at least 1 win, 1 loss or more Achievements are required. When the completion condition of the period is a predetermined number of games, the number 2 does not converge when the new participant wins or loses. For example, in the case of all wins (all losses), the highest evaluation score among the opponents It is also possible to calculate the ability evaluation score by obtaining less than 1 points in a match with a high (low) opponent. In addition, in order to increase the reliability of the evaluation point, it is possible to make it a condition for obtaining a certain degree of reliability for completion of the period, or it is possible to complete the period in a short time by reducing necessary conditions. .

In addition, when new participants play a game during the period, it is possible to obtain an evaluation score that is determined in exactly the same manner by using a provisional value determined for each competition as a capability evaluation score.

Up to this point, the expected win rate We has been described using the logistic function expressed by Equation 2, but it is preferable that consideration is given to the bottom value of the index. Equation 10 below is the same logistic function as Equation 2, but differs in that the base of the exponent is 10.

However, the above equation is a function that has We = 1/11 when Ro-Rs is 200, and We = 1/101 when 400, and it can be said that the evaluation point difference and the expected win rate are difficult to perceive. Such intelligibility can be an obstacle to the widespread use of the ability evaluation system.

Therefore, in the present invention, the formula We = 1 / (1 + 3 ^ ((Ro-Rs) / 200)) expressed by Equation 2 is used. This is the probability that We = 1/4 when Ro-Rs is 200, that is, the probability of winning once every 4 times, and the function is We = 1/10 when 400, and We = 1/2 when Ro-Rs is 0. Along with that, the evaluation point difference and the expected win rate are very easy to understand. Such a good prospect is very effective in promoting the spread of a system that quantitatively evaluates the ability.

Similarly, equation (11) with a base of 2 is also a function that has a good line-of-sight equivalent to equation (2), with We = 1/3 at 200 points, We = 1/5 at 400 points, and We = 1/9 at 600 points. It has become.

In addition, as shown in Equation 12, Equation 2 and Equation 11 can be converted to base 10 simply by multiplying the exponent part by the logarithm of the base, and these equations are the same equations that differ only in the coefficient of Ro-Rs. I understand. When the base is set to 10 as in Equation 10, the evaluation point difference giving 1/3 or 1/4 that is an expected winning rate that is easy to perceive is logarithmically. Accordingly, it is more preferable that the base is 2 or 3, and the denominator of the exponent part is a simple positive integer as much as possible.

As described above, the present invention realizes an ability evaluation system for individuals and teams related to competitions, martial arts, and games that compete with opponents for which it is difficult to evaluate abilities with objective numerical values. It is possible to provide a common indicator of ability and experience by directly or indirectly associating existing competitors.

The web page provided by this web system includes the ability evaluation score for each athlete, evaluation score reliability, other athlete-related information, regional ranking by age, increase rate ranking, and the display of the most recent game results. It is possible to effectively add various service functions such as effective recruitment of opponents based on the evaluation points and reliability as indexes and a bulletin board for holding information on competitions for residents in specific areas. In particular, data obtained by analyzing the relationship between the opponent and partner type, game environment, game strategy, etc. from the result of the game as the player-related information can be very useful information for improving the ability of the participants of the ability evaluation system.

The present invention makes it possible for anyone to use a common ability evaluation system via the Internet, and it is possible for athletes scattered in various regions to objectively evaluate their competitive ability on a common scale. It becomes. This facilitates the exchange of athletes, facilitates the setting of skill enhancement targets, recruitment of opponents, the establishment of competitions by ability, etc., improving the overall level of the competition, expanding the competition population, developing the overall competition, and The economic effects of the development of related businesses can be expected.

1 is an overall configuration diagram of a web system in an embodiment. It is a graph which shows the expected win rate in embodiment. It is the battle | competition history data for every player in embodiment.

Claims (29)

In a server system that constitutes a web system using a client server system using the Internet, competitions, martial arts, games, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as competitions) that compete for victory and defeat and ranking with opponents are performed individually. Input to a web page transmitted to the client system by an operation of a client system (including a mobile phone terminal) by a member of an ability evaluation system provided by the web system and a member of an arbitrary game The result data of the game is collected via the Internet, and the ability evaluation score related to the game of the participant is obtained from the data and past game result data related to the participant stored in the server system. And the result and related information are transmitted to the client system. Server system, characterized in that to display on a page The evaluation score increases when the participant wins the game or gains a relatively higher rank among the participants of the game, and the evaluation score before the start of the game is superior to the opponent. If it is inferior, the amount of increase will be small, and if it is inferior, the amount of increase will decrease, and it will decrease by defeating or lower rank, and the evaluation score before the start of the game will be superior to the opponent 2. The server system according to claim 1, wherein the amount of decrease is large, and the amount of decrease is small if it is inferior. The amount of increase / decrease in the evaluation points varies depending on the evaluation score reliability of the participants, and the increase / decrease amount of those who have relatively high reliability among the participants in the game is small and small 3. The server system according to claim 2, wherein the amount of increase / decrease is increased, and the reliability is calculated by the number of games played by the game participants before the game and / or the number of opponents. The amount of increase / decrease in the evaluation points varies depending on the evaluation score reliability of the participants, and the increase / decrease amount of those who have relatively high reliability among the participants in the game is small and small The amount of increase / decrease is increased, and the number of opponents (referred to as first-layer opponents) of the game played before the game and the reliability of the first-layer opponent performed before the game The number of opponents (referred to as second-tier opponents) and the number of opponents (referred to as third-tier opponents) of matches played by the second-tier opponent before the match, and so on. 3. The server system according to claim 2, wherein the calculation is based on the number of opponents in each layer up to a finite hierarchy. The amount of increase / decrease in the evaluation points varies depending on the content of the game, the amount of increase / decrease is small when close, and the amount of increase / decrease is large when there is a large difference. Alternatively, the server system according to any one of claims 2 to 4, wherein the evaluation is performed based on a ratio and / or a difference in time required to achieve the task. 6. The server according to claim 2, wherein the evaluation score is calculated by averaging an increase / decrease amount of the evaluation score of each game result of a game in the last past or a certain period of time. system The evaluation score is based on the evaluation score before the start of the game of each individual team member in a competition in which a team composed of a plurality of individuals plays a game and evaluates the individual ability as a member. The evaluation score reliability of the person concerned is calculated based on the evaluation point reliability of the evaluation score calculation target person before the start of the game and the evaluation score reliability of the game participants other than the person concerned. The server system according to claim 2, wherein the server system is calculated. The score is determined by 3 or more players, and in competitions where individual game participants compete for rankings and scores, it is assumed that each participant has played a one-on-one match at the same time, and the first-ranked players will participate in other competitions. Assuming that all individual matches with each player have been won, the evaluation score for each of them, the evaluation score reliability, and the amount of increase / decrease according to the content of the game are calculated and the total is allocated, and the second and subsequent players are also calculated in the same way The server system according to any one of claims 2 to 7, wherein the sum total is distributed. For those who are new participants in the ability evaluation system and who do not have a fixed ability evaluation point, provision of the ability evaluation system is started using the provisional value determined for each competition as the ability evaluation point. In the game in which the new participant participates for a period until the predetermined number of games and / or the evaluation score reliability satisfies a certain condition, The server system according to claim 2, wherein the increase / decrease amount of the evaluation score is calculated only for the new participant without performing the increase / decrease allocation of the evaluation score. The server system Ds = K * (Wr−1 / (1 + m ^ () according to claim 2, wherein the increase / decrease amount Ds of the evaluation point according to claim 2 is obtained by the following equation. (Ro-Rs) / n / 10)))
However, K is an arbitrary real number, Wr is a number that is 1 at the time of winning the game, 0 at the time of losing, 0.5 that is at the time of the draw, Ro is the pre-game evaluation score of the opponent or the opponent team, Rs is the self or the own team If it is a pre-game evaluation score, m is 2 or 3, and n is a positive integer. In a client system that constitutes a web system using a client server system using the Internet, competitions, martial arts, games, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as competitions) for winning and losing with competitors and rankings are performed individually. Input to a web page transmitted to the client system by an operation of a client system (including a mobile phone terminal) by a member of an ability evaluation system provided by the web system and a member of an arbitrary game The result data of the game is collected via the Internet, and the ability evaluation score related to the game of the participant is obtained from the data and past game result data related to the participant stored in the server system. And the result and related information is sent to the client system. Client system, characterized in that the display on the web page The evaluation score increases when the participant wins the game or gains a relatively higher rank among the participants of the game, and the evaluation score before the start of the game is superior to the opponent. If it is inferior, the amount of increase will be small, and if it is inferior, the amount of increase will decrease, and it will decrease by defeating or lower rank, and the evaluation score before the start of the game will be superior to the opponent 12. The client system according to claim 11, wherein the amount of decrease is large and the amount of decrease is small if it is inferior. The amount of increase / decrease in the evaluation points varies depending on the evaluation score reliability of the participants, and the increase / decrease amount of those who have relatively high reliability among the participants in the game is small and small 13. The client system according to claim 12, wherein the amount of increase / decrease is increased, and the reliability is calculated by the number of games played by the game participants before the game and / or the number of opponents. The amount of increase / decrease in the evaluation points varies depending on the evaluation score reliability of the participants, and the increase / decrease amount of those who have relatively high reliability among the participants in the game is small and small The amount of increase / decrease is increased, and the number of opponents (referred to as first-layer opponents) of the game played before the game and the reliability of the first-layer opponent performed before the game The number of opponents (referred to as second-tier opponents) and the number of opponents (referred to as third-tier opponents) of matches played by the second-tier opponent before the match, and so on. 13. The client system according to claim 12, wherein the number is calculated based on the number of opponents in each layer up to a finite hierarchy. The amount of increase / decrease in the evaluation points varies depending on the content of the game, the amount of increase / decrease is small when close, and the amount of increase / decrease is large when there is a large difference. The client system according to any one of claims 12 to 14, wherein the evaluation is performed based on a ratio and / or difference in time required to achieve the task. 16. The client according to claim 12, wherein the evaluation score is calculated by averaging an increase / decrease amount of the evaluation score of each game result of a game in the last past or a fixed period. system The evaluation score is based on the evaluation score before the start of the game of each individual team member in a competition in which a team composed of a plurality of individuals plays a game and evaluates the individual ability as a member. The evaluation score reliability of the person concerned is calculated based on the evaluation point reliability of the evaluation score calculation target person before the start of the game and the evaluation score reliability of the game participants other than the person concerned. The client system according to claim 12, wherein the client system is calculated. The score is determined by three or more players, and in a competition in which individual game participants compete for ranks and scores, it is considered that each participant played a one-on-one game at the same time, and the first player is another participant. Assuming that you have won each individual game with each, the evaluation score for each, the evaluation score reliability and the amount of increase / decrease according to the content of the game are calculated, the total is allocated, and the second and lower ranks are also calculated in the same way 18. The client system according to claim 12, wherein a total is allocated. For those who are new participants in the ability evaluation system and who do not have a fixed ability evaluation point, provision of the ability evaluation system is started using the provisional value determined for each competition as the ability evaluation point. In the game in which the new participant participates for a period until the predetermined number of games and / or the evaluation score reliability satisfies a certain condition, 19. The client system according to claim 12, wherein the increase / decrease amount of the evaluation score is calculated only for the new participant without performing the increase / decrease allocation of the evaluation score. The client system Ds = K * (Wr-1 / (1 + m ^ () according to any one of claims 2 to 9, wherein the increase / decrease amount Ds of the evaluation point according to claim 12 is obtained by the following equation. (Ro-Rs) / n / 10)))
However, K is an arbitrary real number, Wr is a number that is 1 at the time of winning the game, 0 at the time of losing, 0.5 that is at the time of the draw, Ro is the pre-game evaluation score of the opponent or the opponent team, Rs is the self or the own team If it is a pre-game evaluation score, m is 2 or 3, and n is a positive integer. Arbitrary implementation of competition, martial arts, games, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as competitions) for competing for victory and defeat and ranking with opponents in a program that constitutes a web system using a client server system using the Internet The web page transmitted to the client system is input by the operation of the client system (including a mobile phone terminal) by a member of the ability evaluation system provided by the web system and a member of the game of Game result data is collected via the Internet, and the ability evaluation score related to the game of the participant is calculated from the data and past game result data related to the participant stored in the server system. The result and related information are transmitted to the client system. Program, characterized in that the display di The evaluation score increases when the participant wins the game or gains a relatively higher rank among the participants of the game, and the evaluation score before the start of the game is superior to the opponent. If it is inferior, the amount of increase will be small, and if it is inferior, the amount of increase will decrease, and it will decrease by defeating or lower rank, and the evaluation score before the start of the game will be superior to the opponent 23. The program according to claim 21, wherein the amount of decrease is large and the amount of decrease is small if it is inferior. The amount of increase / decrease in the evaluation points varies depending on the evaluation score reliability of the participants, and the increase / decrease amount of those who have relatively high reliability among the participants in the game is small and small The amount of increase / decrease is increased, and the reliability is determined by the number of games played by the game participant before the game and / or the number of opponents and / or the reliability is performed before the game. The number of opponents (referred to as first-tier opponents) and the number of opponents (referred to as second-tier opponents) of matches played by the first-tier opponent before the match and the second Calculated based on the number of opponents (referred to as third-tier opponents) of the match played by the layer opponent before the above-mentioned match, and the number of opponents in each layer defined in the same way up to a finite hierarchy 23. The program according to claim 22, wherein The amount of increase / decrease in the evaluation points varies depending on the content of the game, the amount of increase / decrease is small when close, and the amount of increase / decrease is large when there is a large difference. 24. The program according to claim 22 or 23, wherein the evaluation is made based on the ratio of the time required to accomplish the task and / or the difference. The program according to any one of claims 22 to 24, wherein the evaluation score is calculated by averaging the amount of increase or decrease in the evaluation score of each game result of a game in the last past or a certain period of time. The evaluation score is based on the evaluation score before the start of the game of each individual team member in a competition in which a team composed of a plurality of individuals plays a game and evaluates the individual ability as a member. The evaluation score reliability of the person concerned is calculated based on the evaluation point reliability of the evaluation score calculation target person before the start of the game and the evaluation score reliability of the game participants other than the person concerned. 26. The program according to claim 22, wherein the program is calculated. The score is determined by three or more players, and in a competition in which individual game participants compete for ranks and scores, it is considered that each participant played a one-on-one game at the same time, and the first player is another participant. Assuming that you have won each individual game with each, the evaluation score for each, the evaluation score reliability and the amount of increase / decrease according to the content of the game are calculated, the total is allocated, and the second and lower ranks are also calculated in the same way 27. The program according to claim 22, wherein a total is allocated. For those who are new participants in the ability evaluation system and who do not have a fixed ability evaluation point, provision of the ability evaluation system is started using the provisional value determined for each competition as the ability evaluation point. In the game in which the new participant participates for a period until the predetermined number of games and / or the evaluation score reliability satisfies a certain condition, 28. The program according to claim 22, wherein the increase / decrease amount of the evaluation score is calculated only for the new participant without performing the increase / decrease allocation of the evaluation score. 29. The increase / decrease amount Ds of the evaluation point according to claim 2 is obtained by the following formula: program Ds = K * (Wr-1 / (1 + m ^ (( Ro-Rs) / n / 10)))
Where K is an arbitrary real number, Wr is 1 when winning the game, 0 when losing, 0.5 when drawing, Ro is the opponent's or opponent team's pre-game evaluation score, If it is a pre-game evaluation score, m is 2 or 3, and n is a positive integer.

Images