Oooh, ratings fight! A post at the Closet Grandmasters blog has provoked the usual back and forth about the accuracy/problems with the rating system used in Australia (Glicko2). While I'm firmly on the side of statistical accuracy (as opposed to the "this looks wrong but I can't tell you why" side of the argument) a number of years ago I did come up with an alternative system which should make everyone happy.
New Ratings System Proposal
Premise: A rating system should be easy to understand, transparent, and reflect the perceived strength of the participants.
Rule 1: When I beat someone rated above me my rating should go up
Rule 2: When I beat someone rated way above me my rating should go up heaps
Rule 3: When I lose to someone rated below me my rating should only drop a little as they were probably lucky or I was off form, and anyway they shouldn't be beating me, otherwise they would be rated above me.
Rule 4: When I lose to someone rated way below me they are clearly an underrated player and the system is at fault so I shouldn't lose any ratings points, and indeed should get a couple of extra for the embarrassment and inconvenience.
Rule 5:If I have a good tournament where I perform above my rating, then this tournament reflects my true strength and my rating should be adjusted accordingly.
Rule 6:If I have a couple of bad tournaments these results should be discounted as they don't reflect my true strength (see rule 5) and to include them would make a mockery of the ratings system.
Rule 7: It is an historical fact that players in my state of "insert name here" are underrated compared to all the other states and an adjustment factor is required for each list
Some proposed values
Rule 1: +10 points
Rule 2: +50 points
Rule 3: -1 point
Rule 4: +5 points
Rule 5: Players performance rating
Rule 6: 0 points
Rule 7:+100 points
A simple system, easy to understand.