[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

USBGF Acquires ABT

Posted By: leobueno
Date: Sunday, 1 January 2017, at 8:21 p.m.

In Response To: USBGF Acquires ABT (Stick)

I write from the perspective of a mediocre backgammon player who just likes to play. My only backgammon bona fides are that for many years now I have been trying to keep live play in the Miami (Florida, USA) area going. See www.MiamiBackgammon.com.

Without a doubt, the USBGF needs to foster involvement and participation by top-tier players. However, I hope it does not ignore the rest of us, particularly when it comes to implementing a modern ratings system, as Stick suggests.

My focus here is simply on player rank *nomenclature*, one that will extend from donkeys to superstars of the game.

Others in this group have pointed to the world and national Bridge systems for guidance on rankings systems. I am somewhat familiar with the Chess systems.

In contrast, take a look at the BMAB MASTERSHIP TITLES AND PROFICIENCY LEVELS GRADING STRUCTURE (http://bgmastersab.com/index.html). I appreciate what these folk are trying to do, but their nomenclature is too complex.

For example, there are "Mastership Titles", "Proficiency Levels" and then within those, "Classes". That's too damn complex. Do we really need to distinguish between a "Grandmaster 2 and a Grand Master 3?

This begins to sound like Boxing, where in addition to "super" and "junior" weight classes you now have world champions and "silver" champions. The proliferation of championship titles is a joke on the boxing public.

Let's keep the Backgammon terms meaningful, useful and compact.

I suggest we look at the proficiency nomenclature levels used in other games (Bridge, Chess, Go, etc.) and that we adopt a straightforward one. For example:

Grand Master | Master | Expert | Intermediate | Experienced | Novice | Beginner

or perhaps

Grand Master | Star | Master | Expert | Intermediate | Learned |Experienced | Novice | Beginner

Maybe we can add two or four more, so long as "Intermediate" stays in the middle where it will accurately reflect that the player's skill is . . . intermediate (and corresponds to the area in the middle of the skill distribution curve, which I assume is normal).

Once the nomenclature is established, you can fit the ranks into the skill distribution curve.

For example, if we assume a rating system like FIBS that starts by awarding a new player a rating of 1500, we can call folk whose rating is, for example, from 1451 to 1549 "Intermediate", and players above 1900 "Grand Master".

I suggest that the rank titles be awarded for life, even when a player's numerical rank diminish to below their maximum obtained titular rank--the numerical ratings will always be available to indicate the players' actual standing. Don't we call former US presidents "Mr. President" or a former boxing champion "The Champ", even though they are not? We should do the same for backgammon.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.