| |
BGonline.org Forums
Suggested Idea for Performance Grading
Posted By: Dmitriy Obukhov In Response To: Suggested Idea for Performance Grading (Timothy Chow)
Date: Saturday, 4 October 2014, at 1:53 a.m.
However, given that we're accepting that backgammon is different from chess in this way, why do we feel the need to use chess terminology for the titles?
I think the idea here is that such titles are widely recognized. To me, how you call the titles is not very important, though. If someone came up with say "3rd category WC player", I would accept it.
Another difficulty with using the titles is that there's a rather high risk, in my opinion, of lining up titles and PRs in a way that will end up seeming silly ten or twenty years from now.
About ten years ago, there were about 10 chess players over 2700 ELO what we call as Super GM's. Now there are close to 50 players over 2700 ELO. Just like in chess, level of play in BG will rise, but I don't think people will think it is silly to call same people Super GM's just because time changed. People will understand that these titles were given to players reaching some level of play during a point in time. I should also mention that criteria for FIDE titles did not stay the same over the time.
Though it would mean more work, I think that it makes more sense to begin by maintaining something like a public Elo rating list, except with XG PR instead of Elo rating. Any predesignated live match satisfying certain criteria would count towards your ongoing public PR.
It does make sense to have such a list. I would love to see it. However, as you I am sure understand, we are a long way from creating anything meaningful. Meanwhile, if we accepted what Rick proposed, or something close to it, we would be ready to start something very soon.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.