MortonHQ wrote:
The down side is that there may be some players out there who simply won't play if they think they'll get beat (Makrobes for example. I can say that cos he's gone). This is likely to mean than good players won't get many games. Am I wrong?
What this ELO system seems to do is enforce a curve in what people's ratings are. Everyone starts at a specific level, and if they are better than average, their score will be higher. If there are worse than average, their score will be lower. It Sounds simple, but it also would have some interesting dynamics. The K values he mention mean that when you just start playing, your score will fluctuate quite a bit as you win and lose. If you play a perfect streak and beat a bunch of more experienced players, you will be at the top pretty quick. Then again, if you play against poor players and lose over and over, you will find yourself at the bottom real quick.
The nice thing about this system is that you will only lose a lot of points if you lose against somebody with a similar or lower rating. It makes sense. Being beat by the best players just goes to show why they are the best players, and doesn't hurt you too bad. But then again, the best players have a great deal to lose if they lose to a low ranked person. So it will encourage people to play with players of similar skill levels.
Another thing that is realistic is that you will reach an upper limit. Sooner or later, you'll be at the top, and the only way to go higher is to play others of a similar level. Unfortunately, at the top, there are no players with the same rank because you have the absolute highest. The same thing is true of the bottom. When you are there, there is no place to go but up.
Ok, now I've explained this method in layman's terms. This approach would have a lot of dynamics similar to what a league would have. In a league, there is a distinct pecking order, as players end up being put where there skill levels are by their wins and losses. There are a few brilliant players that come on top Every time, and then there are the masses. Some are better than others, obviosly, but their skill levels are fairly comparable. Now the best players always have something to keep them coming, because if they can only beat the top player a few times, they'll take his place. The masses will still have plenty to come back for, as they see their skills progress and their rating rise.
I do like the idea of a league as well. The tournament approach with the auto-assigned games make it all the more better. In fact, I'm still not sure what approach I like better
. It just took me a while to figure out the ramifications of that ELO system, so I just wanted to save other people that mental twisting.
The nice thing about leagues is that they are regulated, and you pit players together in a fashion that we can quickly determine who the best player is. The nice thing about the ELO system is that it is informal, and will be better tested with time. A bad day can kill your league standing, because they are more final. The ELO system would be more static, and would move players toward their overall skill level over time. Of course then, its hard to say who's the best at any given time because that will be changing so much
. Winning a league tournament would give you greater bragging rights.
All right, enough thoughts for now. Mental Dump finished.