Rating System

[Mike]

Axioma: rating system is a poison for any on-line bridge site, but it would be especially harmful for BBO.

 

Corollary: myself experienced the inherent injustice of any rating system and its harmful effect on all sites I visited since computer bridge emerged. (ftf  monsterpoints are not exeptions, lol.)

 

Interesting that the thread on the strong club sytem(s) soon run into a totally different subject going through advanced vs expert selfqualification, ending in a rating system discussion. The subject deserves open discussion.

 

Just a few quotes from really good and knowledgable bridge people:

 

I STRONGLY beleive that it would be a major mistake to  introduce a rating system to BBO.

 

Ranking methods in the game of bridge is not mathematically coherent. There's too many variables, too many uncontrolled restraints, and prediction is a total headache.

 

Defining an expert over an advanced player...that's something I'll reserve comment on.

 

Expert vs advance. LOL if you ask 10 people you get 10 different answers.

 

In general any general ranking scheme is bound to be skewed ...

 

It is not by chance that above I quoted those ideas I totally agree.

 

What i rather found naive expectation is this:

 

Until Fred institutes tournaments in the BBO, could we develop a metric to determine a players ability level for terms of self-described "ability?" Probably not,...

 

and later:

 

Of course once tournments are instituted, it will be easier to pull out peoples ranking here based upon performance under battle conditions.

 

Nothing is far from truth. Just think on the chances of ad-hoc pairs against established partnerships, etc.

 

There is only one measure which counts. The hand just played in comparison to the others. But to draw some generic conclusion from it would be a mistake.

 

Averaging thousands of games would only be meaningful if some consistency in the pairings (partners and opponents including) could be assured. But that would be harmful to the game and especially to BBO, whose one of the main initiatives is to extend the attraction of our game and initiate as many newcomers as possible. Anything that encourages elitism and discourages integration is harmful! I have seen many sites that punish better players playing with newcomers by their rating system. They made a big disservice to bridge, but they shoot on the foot themselves, lol.

 

I do not want to go deep to the field of game psychology. It is natural that every human who plays game want to win. Leave that win or loose to the just palyed hand. That will assure long term goals while satisfy the majority. Only those will not be satisfied who want to subdue others through a rating system (that is always unjust). Even playing field (more or less) exists only on the highest level of international competition.

 

I am only sorry for those who replace the enjoyment of the game with collection of masterpoints, or the like.

 

I am for tournament play, but strongly oppose the use of tourney results for any kind of generic discrimination.

 

Motto: Bridge is a partnership game.

 

Contrast: On-line bridge is played mostly by ad-hoc partnerships.

 

Solution: BBO as is (no rating system)

[Rhutobello]

Agree with you:)

 

Why do I then post?

 

Well have just installed the new ver of BBO software, and started to use the abillity to ad your own coment on players. I think this abillity will solve much of the lack of a rating system.

In my opinion players that are cruel, or complain much,or give the impression of beeing better player then they are, will go into a harder future, and that is good:P

 

BBO,I like your new program, YOU are the best ;D  

[keylime]

I like BBO the way it is right now with no numerical rating scheme. I think the best way to show players one's ability is by word-of-mouth advertising.