My view was that what you say is based on the current scoring system. If people are only playing these types of ranked games against people of a similar standard you will not get the spread of scoring that you see now from 600-950. Unless someone is so outstanding and can beat every other player they are going to lose games and points - plus add in the reduction for people that dont play and i think you will get a much more squashed points spread but a truer order of merit. The actual points score ought to be irrelevant - the position is important.

Edited at 23:17 Thu 17/07/08 (BST)

Bold statement time

I actually think that in the absence of a league set up at the moment until Nick can introduce it properly as he sees fit this system could work along side the current ranking tables on a seasonal basis. Set the season for say 3 months and start all members (and any new ones joining during the season) at the middle score and let battle commence.

Probably a horrendous amount of difficult work involved but would be an interesting feature maybe

Edited at 23:28 Thu 17/07/08 (BST)

Oh but you will! You are very misguided indeed if you think the reason for people reaching 900 in the current system is because they exclusively play one particular category opponent (regardless of what that category might be)

Even if forced to play people around your own rank, any player that is better than his current rank level will always over time improve his rank. Just like any player that is worse than his rank will over time lose rank.

People who currently top the ranking tables do so because they are (among) the best players on the site. Not because they somehow exploit the system.

Please dont quote something then make a comment on something i didnt say!!

Players of similar standards should generally cancel each other out with the better player slowly edging clear - if one player does go clear from this system then its job done because you will have identified the best player committed to competing that way at that moment in time - because they will be genuinely clear of everyone else having played their nearest challengers

Your second paragraph is obviously fact and that is the idea - as you improve so would the standard of your opposition and vice-versa

Third paragraph - well if that was 100% true then I would be the first to say great and lets end these discussions now - unfortunately it isnt and you know it isnt just me saying that - perhaps we are all wrong

Edited at 01:57 Fri 18/07/08 (BST)

Like the idea arcade_fire. Current ranking system doesnt work correctly due to people choosing to avoid playing equal/better ranked players and prefer getting points beating some of the poorer players.

Would upset a few if this got introduced.

Wooooooo

Yeah good idea, would stop certain people getting ludicrous ranks from playing 600s

Nor did I, so calm down please.

I wrote "IF you think....". The if is there for a reason. (I can't possibly know what you think, just make assumptions based on what you write)

If you have further issues along this line, you WILL take it to PMs or hold your peace. Personal quarrels have no place on a public board.


Back on topic...



Precisely, and the best players will keep doing that until they are at the top of the list - just like they do now.




You could still have played a somehow preferable selection of players in that segment. It does not ensure every player playing all other relevant players just because the ranks you can play is limited


And in any case, lets just repeat the simple problem killing this idea completely: Player skill distribution. The total player pool is shaped like a pyramid: For every top player on this site, there is maybe 1000 medium ones and 30000 low rankers. This is nothing special for pool or this site, it's the same for every other sport in the world. The world is full of amateurs, but only a few make it to the world elite.

Any system that limits your opponent options to those around you will make it impossible to find ranked games for the top players most of the time. That is not only a bad idea, it's quite unacceptable.

Edited at 16:59 Fri 18/07/08 (BST)

I think it's absolutely vital at this point to remember that rank determined by win/loss alone is, and always will be, only loosely linked to a players skill and/or ability.

Also - no ranking system can be meaningful unless players of all skil levels regularly play each other.

Limiting opponents to those within a close limit of your own rank would produce a false indication of your form at that time, this works in both directions.

Someone who typically plays around 850, but is having a bad day, may easily lose 5 games to a 700, but if they are limited to within 50, then will lose a lesser amount of rank than they would if playing a full range of opponents.

Likewise in the opposite scenario. As already said, my rank rarely moves near 800, but on a good day (don't have many, don't worry!) i can regularly beat the 870 bracket players.

So, all that said, there is in fact a relatively simple method to impliment a second ranking system which which is not affected by people selecting who they play.

An independant rank, same as "normal", but only for tournament games.

Edited at 17:54 Fri 18/07/08 (BST)