Backgammon Online

06-Jun-2010
11:45 PDT

So getting to #1 - or as close as you can -- is sort of the objective, although I guess you can climb down as well as up (but it wouldn't be nearly as challenging to climb down the ladder).

skulls mentioned that many top rated players don't play many games or play every day. There are a couple of people like that, but in my experience most of the players over 1800 play almost obsessively. I found the speed of games to be much slower when I joined the bottom of the ladder than in playing highly rated players.

skulls also accused players of being "'afraid to play lower rated players." I don't really think that's it. If this were chess, would anyone wonder why someone rated 1800 would be more interested in playing another 1800 player than in playing a 1500 player? Yes, losing means dropping a lot of rating points, but the equally rated player is going to put up more of a fight. There are a limited number of hours in the day.

17-Jun-2010
09:13 PDT

Not too long ago my PC crashed and I lost 150 rating points, so when I got back on line my rating was in the 1500s. With so patience and due diligence I have recent reached my new all time high of 1953 and have held down the number #1 spot on occasion. As I recall no one wanted to risk losing to a strong player with a low rating, but on the other hand all of my buddies at the other end of the rating pool enjoyed slapping hands on a regular bases. Considering the nature of the game and it's difficulties and the strength of players on this site at the higher end, would you except someone to risk what it does take a considerable time and effort to gain on a regular and if you would what would the reward be in that! Dinosaur 53

17-Jun-2010
16:28 PDT

Also, When a top player joins the ladder, his rating falls and he leaves the top. While such a phenomenon would give evidence for top players joining the ladder; one would have to being watching a particular player closely to see it happen. Otherwise, with his/her rating having dipped below the top scores, it superficially gives more evidence to Skulls argument. Because, from appearances, he/she is just another not quite top player in the ladder.

I worry that is a confusing explanation. Hypothetically, say you have a group of the strongest 30 players at Zooescape. If 20 of them join the ladder, there is a good chance their ranking in ratings will drop out of the top 30. Then, they might be replaced by all or mostly players not in the ladder. In this scenario top players are mixed in with lower rated players (in ratings ranks). But, people can still look at the top 30 players and say, "Hey, they are not in the ladder." But, that does nothing to prove that the -strongest- players are not in the ladder.

Man, this concept is easy to think about, but couldn't quite get my fingers to punch out the best explanation.