I am playing someone who is rated 180 points below me. If he wins, he gets 12 points; if I win, I get 4 points. So over 10 games, I would need to win 8 games to get 32 points and make a net profit of 8 points. That is just not going to happen against a reasonably skilled player; there is just too much luck in backgammon games. It means that I am virtually forced to play opponents at my current rating and so my choice of opponents is very resricted. A much more sensible approach would be to have 7/9 range for a difference of 150 rating points and 6/10 difference for all the rest.
tonyh: The problem is, and it has been talked about a lot in the past, is all games on BrainKing currently use the same rating system, which is one designed for Chess games which is (for sake of argument) is 95% skill, 5% luck
So when you apply that same rating system to games like Backgammon (65% skill, 35% luck), Battleboats (25% skill, 75% luck), Ludo (30% skill, 70% luck), Dice Poker (35% skill, 65% luck), etc.... anyway, using the same rating system designed for a mostly skill game does not produce the same results for luck games.
PLEASE NOTE: I'm not trying to start an argument about how much luck/skill goes into each game - the % that I wrote above are just quick numbers I made up.
What the site really needs is at least 2 different rating systems - 1 for mostly skill games (chess, checkers), and 1 for games that deal more with luck (dice games).
Hopefully some day Fencer will add that (and go back and recalculate ratings from the start).
coan.net: Thank you for that, Coan, very helpful and to the point.
A further pooint I did not mention, is that the top 100 Backgammon players will rarely, if ever, enter a tournament. they might get an opponent rated 500 points below and then might lose - Horrors.