Walter Montego: all ratings systems have some validity, but I do like the one I proposed because it has no inherent weighting, instead, one can see the average placing and judge for themselves how good a player is, without need for an arbitrary multiplicative or log factor. Again, not to say logs etc aren't valid, but when I look at someone's chess rating and they got to be 2500, it doesn't tell me if they skimmed along beating 2100s consistently to get there or if they beat 2300s and lose to 2700s. I can make the value judgement myself, and I would like to do that if ponds begin to be rated.

I can see bwild's idea as making perfect sense, only winning counts. That's why we play, no one ever plays to come in second.

But I can also see why someone who consistently finishes 2nd, 3rd etc must be given their due level of respect as well! How much less respect than the winner? I think that is unquantifiable, and their mean place (M.P.) allows anyone to judge that for themselves.