BBO Skills

[fred]

These symbols have been and continue to be good for business so I cannot imagine what you are thinking when you characterize our introduction of these symbols as a "mistake".

My characterization of the symbols as a mistake was in relation to your anti-ratings stance. Even if what you are rewarding is achievement in ACBL games on BBO, you have introduced a ranking scheme. Perhaps it doesn't rate bridge skill, but it could easily be mistaken for an attempt to do just that. (Otherwise, why would anyone be proud of their symbol? Why are the symbols good marketing tools?)

 

Perhaps it's a matter of semantics. But, you cannot attempt to rank things without also rating them. To rank is to assign a relative value or position. To rate is to assign relative rank. They go hand in hand.

 

I've read your explanation of the symbols and they are a ranking scheme. They rate relative performance (or attendance) in ACBL tournaments on BBO.

 

In light of this, I thought Ben's statement:

Rating systems, it is not going to happen here on BBO (Fred has long ago spoken on this issue).

to simply be wrong. There is at least one rating system on BBO.

 

Perhaps your position is that there will be no system wide rating system. Or, that there will be no dynamic rating system. Or, that there will be no rating system which attemtps to measure bridge skill. But, you've already instituted a rating system.

 

Tim

 

PS I'm in favor of rating systems; I wish there were lots of them.

My "anti-rating" stance is an "anti-skill-rating" stance.

 

I have nothing against "rewarding" successful players and that is exactly what the profile symbols do.

 

Inquiry understands this and, when he said that a rating system on BBO was not going to happen, he was referring to a system that rated skill.

 

Apparently I did make a mistake when I introduced these symbols - I did not make my opinions and intentions clear enough (I tried, but I guess people don't actually read our readme.txt files). However, I do not think that the introduction of the symbols themselves was a mistake (quite the contrary - I am confident that this was a smart move) and I feel strongly that the existence of these symbols does not contradict my "anti-skill-rating" stance.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[slothy]

As i was saying before i got distracted by a rather overdue beckoning of Mother Nature... :lol:

 

Further, what i find more astonishing is that some experts, TRUE experts, and i personally know of a few, who deliberately 'dumb-down' their ratings (or dont don their stars, but they are a handful) in order not to intimidate others. Ironically, I dont see these people hankering for a rating system which collectively no doubt they would most likely dominate.

 

Or is it that some people want to somehow prove to themselves and to others who they think underrate them that they, peacock-like, deserve some adornment, recognition (or accolade that Fred overlooked) which they can brandish when they strut into the BBO lobby?

 

Rating systems may make the bridge more competitive but as has been said over and over and over again in this forum (and on rec bridge) to the extent that some people seem unwilling to budge one bit and no amount of presuasive argument makes them think otherwise, and here i am sure the BBO management has taken lessons from bridge sites that preceded them, that going in this direction opens a can of worms best left to stew in its own putrid syrup. And as far as i am concerned Lehman-lovers are at will to drink it :)

 

Good bridge needn't be competitive* just as much as competitive bridge isn't necessarily good

 

*in the sense that every time you are playing you are shooting a %.

 

IMHO, i agree with 'Master Poster' Ben in his last post in this thread (assuming he doesnt post before i submit this :blink: ). I would like to see the day when 'value-for-money' tournaments or games are instituted where expert commentary and other add-ons, which B mentioned, are provided in-cost. If anything this would improve the understanding and appreciation of many of us who play on here more than anything i can think of.

 

But this requires investment, management and the support of its users. I try my best to support the site and i have bought my fair share of online Bridge Master series and i play in paid tourneys (for which ACBL points are utterly worthless to me unless i decide to emigrate to the States..oh Bush got re-inaugurated, ah well...).

 

For those people who seem concerned about the quality of this site i just urge you to put your hands (one hand may suffice unless your wallet is especialy bulky) in your pocket and give currency to the site-developers to maintain and improve the site in a way you might agree with instead of trying to persuade the powers-that-be to change something they have said over and over again that they will not.

 

Alex.

 

PS Spleen-explosions permitting i will now go and play some bridge...

[luke warm]

for what it's worth, the only rating system i'm in favor of is the one already in use, the one where i can see a gold star and go kib... fred? brad? rubin? soloway? hamman? heck, it's hard for people to sit and enjoy and learn from that caliber player in almost any other endeavor, at least for free...

 

and contrary to timg's post, the star system doesn't cause me one bit of confusion

[HeartA]

Conventions one plays does have anything to do with declaring, defending, AND finding the good contracts. I have seen too many players who know a lot of conventions, but don't know how to bid an easy hand.

[hotShot]

A rating system would useful only to those you want to improve their skills and need a mesure for that.

If you start a sport e.g. running, you can time your effords and see how you improve. If is very hard to mesure your advances in bridge.

 

A true World Class Player has no need for a rating System to tell him/her that he/she is good.

 

The problem is, as far as i know there is no good rating system.

 

A rating system has a effect on people. I don't need to repeat what was said earlier about this.

 

And anybody who wants a rating system should decide, if they can deal with a result that is different from what they expected.

 

If you are not the bridge god, you thought you were, can you accept that?

Can you accept to be turned down as a partner, because you are not good enough?

 

And if you are the bridge god, do you really want a bunch of kib's hanging around at your table every time you play?

How do you deal with all the "rubbish" players, that try to play a few boards with you?