a rating of 2k cant get you into top 10, the ladder is getting competitive. :)

Top 20 are still all old-timers.
Atm, there is hardly any chance for new players to enter top 10 and stay there for a while, the experience gap is too big. Given time, this will change though.
There's a few players that can easily take back #1 if they'd care enough.
However, it's great to see a rise in popularity and this will be a lot of fun for any active player.

The 2v2 ladder is odd. Pulsey/Gruffalo win 8 in a row and they don't get a matchup with any team in the 1800s? That seems odd to me. I guess maybe because there are so few active teams with an 1800 rating? How does the formula decide matchups?

damn it, i really want to play pig and qi

I think it should improve now that there are more players getting rankings..

What I see most of you fail to realize on this is that rating at a ceartain time does not equal skill, ranking shows much more. With more people, the ratings get exagerrated and that is why there are so many people with higher ratings than they should have.

Congrats to abr who has achieved 1st in the 1v1 ladder!

Now, where will Ko turn up?

Edited 9/6/2013 08:00:56

How does ranking show more JSA? They are 4th on the ladder and the best team they beat was rated 1776 (I think that was the number at the time), and lost to a team ranked 13th.

I'm not saying they are not good, but they have not been tested hardly at all.

Chris, what are you talking about? I speak of the 1v1 ladder, I could care less about the 2v2, the 2v2 for the most part is teams coming in and leaving right away. The top 10 seem to usually be the same people but with different teammates. Very few teams stick together longer than five months that I have seen.

Ranking > Rating at a high level
Everyone's rating is getting inflated right now with so many new players joining, most are 50-150 players and can't compete at the top. I see 2 that have joined in the last month or so that are around top 20 now. 7th place now is about the same as 7th 6 months ago. In fact, 6 months ago was even stronger I think, but back then, there were only about 3 guys rated above 2000, in fact, one player in the top 10 was below 1900. The competition was stronger then than it was now. So to me, rating is not very important.

and... me and gruff left the ladder :)

have fun everyone.

Maybe ratings should consider only 15 last games or more but only if they are won games. In that case 1vs1 ladder would be more interesting IMO.

^ I think this would mess up the top and bottoms of the ladder, giving inflated ratings to some, and would underestimate others. While it may make the ladder more interesting I think it would reflect less on the skill of the player.

I do agree, however that it would be better if all players have roughly the same number of games counting towards their rating, instead of some people with 15 and others with 40 games. I just think 15 is too low to get a good sample.

There's 14 players with over 2000 points. I'm impressed, to say the least.