13.06.2006 02:04, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (wlod):

the presence of the rating system for pros
reliefs the open system from the pressure
of being extra subtle,

"Subtle" in which sense?

and especially from
the obligation of being resistent to the cheating
attempts. The open system would be strictly
for fun.

Most players, including amateurs don't regard ratings as fun but take it
quite seriously.

It would be useless and even unethical
to make a serious reference to the open rating
to claim one's chess strength.

It will happen nevertheless.


Why all this is important? Because it'd make
the open system cheaper, something like a
penny per game, per player.

What exactly will make it cheaper?


On the other hand, the professionally rated
games would have to be played under
well understood and controlled circumstances.

Principally this is already the case with the Elo-rating.

The pro rating system should make cheating
virtually impossible.

And the example of arranged tournaments tells, that this is quite difficult.


This would have to make the professional rating
much more expensive per game. The separation
of the two kind of ratings would make the
pro rating more meaningful. Indeed, it is
important not to mix chess games which
have very different meaning.

Your separation looks a lot like the difference betwenn national rating
and Elo - at least in the past, when the lower bound was at 2200.

Such a sophistication would be essential
to professionals (but not to amateurs).

Sophisticated equations don't make it more expensive to calculate. So,
why not giving it also to the amateurs?

Greetings,
Ralf