Roger de Coverly wrote:
Back in around 1970 when this rule first came in, they didn't use computers and didn't itemise individual results.
For sure. Keeping things simple back then was very reasonable. Actually, it still is now. The current system clearly isn't perfect but at least those - like me and Sebastian Stone, for example - who like to calculate our own rating performance can do so the ECF way. I just had a look at how elo ratings are calculated. Hardly straightforward.
I do think an amendment to the 40 point rule is worth considering although even there the argument for keeping things as simple as possible could trump the benefit of the 'improvement'.
(my thinking, btw, is simply that there is sense behind the idea that one shouldn't lose rating points by winning games nor gain points by losing them, but to restrict the amount of points you can collect by winning a game doesn't have any logic at all as far as I can see; if changing the rule impacts on the grading system then so be it, would be my argument).
Actually, my interest in all this tends to be theoretical rather than practical. I find discussions around these sorts of statistical questions interesting in and of themselves. In practice it doesn't bother me too much that a system has flaws because a grade is only a general overview anyway.
When I break my results down by league/colour/strength of opponent etc the results vary greatly and since creating grades for each circumstance would be a nonsense, one rough approximation is good enough. So it seems to me, anyway.
"Of all the stupid questions so far, This one is particularly annoying, and irrelevant and when I meet you, I propose to write it down on cardboard and nail it to your face."
- Jerry Sadowitz