Ranking

[dorbel]

Because rating systems are closed, i.e. they have no connection with each other and because they have different parameters and even different rating formulae, comparisons between them are useless. Within each system all one can do is compare one's rating to the other players within it. The actual number of one's rating is unimportant.
Socksey has "never been as low in any other system". This doesn't mean that the system is bad, only that socksey has had a long bad run in FLG and is close to or at the lowest point in her rating range. In a year's time she may well be 100 rating points higher than she is now, but I am not sure that learning from vic and resh is the way to go!

[lewscannon]

Because rating systems are closed, i.e. they have no connection with each other and because they have different parameters and even different rating formulae, comparisons between them are useless. Within each system all one can do is compare one's rating to the other players within it. The actual number of one's rating is unimportant.
Socksey has "never been as low in any other system". This doesn't mean that the system is bad, only that socksey has had a long bad run in FLG and is close to or at the lowest point in her rating range. In a year's time she may well be 100 rating points higher than she is now, but I am not sure that learning from vic and resh is the way to go!

Well, you may not learn much about bg from them, but I'm sure there are a lot of other subjects they are well versed on.

[playBunny]

Because rating systems are closed, i.e. they have no connection with each other and because they have different parameters and even different rating formulae, comparisons between them are useless.

"Useless" is too strong. For an individual it's difficult to make sense of two disparate ratings but for a set of players you can expect a correlation even if not a n accurate mapping. High in one system tends to be high in another, likewise with the lows. DailyGammon is comparable to Fibs, to a degree and even BrainKing's whacky rating system (modified Chess formula, unequal amounts for winner and loser, no match lengths considered) is still comparable to DailyGammon's. We've been discussing the former only just recently, in fact. http://www.dailygammon.com/bg/forum2/main/read/25784

[don]

Actually, what is wrong with dorbel's (and Tomawaky's) rating system is simply the group it is assessing.  For example, if you take the "master" players' games against each other, at this level of play average play will result in a 1500 rating even tho the players are all above average in backgammon skills.

Do some math on "help ratings" to convince yourself of this.

--
don