I think Elo would be great so long as only live tournament play is
considered and players had no choice over whether matches are rated or
not.
Example: On January 5,
2014 I had an online USBGF tournament match where my opponent's Elo was
300 points higher than mine.
In his Gridgammon invite to me he unchecked rating - which meant that
the match would not count in the Elo ratings.
That shouldn't be allowed, because that skews the Elo ratings.
Personally, I am very cynical about Elo, because I have three Elo's
and they're widely different:
-
1450 - from live play on the American Backgammon Tour
-
1714 - from online tournament play in a league that plays on Safe
Harbor. There are no Giants who play there. From matches that I've
recorded, the average PR of my opponents is 16.
-
6008 - from a web site called Pogo where I could pick and choose who
I played. Some of my opponents created artificially high Elo's by
creating multiple id's and "playing" them against each other. I no
longer play on that site.
I also believe that records for online play and live play should be
kept separately for the following reasons:
-
There are a lot of distractions in live play (spectators, ambient
noise).
-
In live play there's real money on the line. That adds to
pressure.
-
You have to be more alert in live play to ensure that your opponent
doesn't make any illegal moves. This contributes to fatigue.
-
Live play takes longer (dice falling on the floor, board has to be
reset after each game) and therefore is more tiring.
-
Pip counting is difficult in a live environment. Online I could use
paper and pencil if not have the software do it for me.
-
Online I could have a MET table posted beside my computer ... along
with other tips like how to play various opening or second rolls at
various scores.
-
Online I could have a friend or family member help with decisions.
-
I could have a second computer with XG on it.