"Be more accurate" is not a very well-defined metric. Be more accurate in what way? What's the metric? How unkind! And I thought we were buddies. Now I'm sad. Since you're referring to my comments, I'm moved to wonder why you think I don't understand how an Elo system works. It's not very complicated. In a statistical sense you can predict the number of heads from coin flips, though. It's a simple binomial calculation. You could similarly predict the results of a tournament based on Elo scores, though I'm not sure why you'd want to. The point of a rating system is to seed pools evenly, not to predict who'll win the event. That's what an Elo system does, but for the most part I don't think it's what a fencing rating system is required to do. For a rating system, the measure of effectiveness should be how even the pools are. I'm all for unusual tournament formats, but for serious events we're likely for the foreseeable future to use pools to DEs, to mirror what international events do. So evenness of pools is important. Predicting individual bout results is less important. The two are related, but if you're establishing a metric, even pools should be high in your mind. Since the poster pointed to an article that described exactly such a system, I think the poster can be assumed to have been aware of such a solution. I agree. That's what the article I pointed to laid out. If you talk to chess people I think you'll find they don't like this, both because it's new and because you in essence now have two ratings, your two year high and your current rating, and they think it's complicated to keep track of compared to a single number. But yes, a high water mark for Div II and similar events seems to be the best solution to tanking bouts on purpose. Also, the same problem exists currently. A strong C can avoid getting a B before SN in order to fence in Div II. And strong C's do so. So in terms of comparison to the current system, I think that point is a wash. I'm sorry if you're feeling attacked about this, as your tone seems to indicate. I don't intend to do so. I'm just a guy on the internet anyway, I like math and I'm interested in how rules affect gameplay. I think large-scale changes like this should be really carefully examined for bad effects. If prying open any possible bad effects of an Elo system feels like an attack on you personally I'm sorry, that wasn't intended. An Elo system with a two year floor, or something similar, seems to me to be a perfectly workable system. I think I said that before, and I still think that. I'm not at all sure, though, that it's any better than the system we have for seeding pools. To show it is you'd have to establish a metric that measured something like the variance of the pool results in DEs or something similar. I think you'll find that an Elo system does only slightly better than the current system, if it does measurably better at all. So suppose I'm right about that; pools to DEs is not very sensitive to initial seeding anyway. If going to an Elo system would not improve seeding much or at all, then you have to ask if the trouble and added complication and the required computation is worth the non-seeding benefits (ie, measurement of progress, etc). That's a social question, I guess you'd take a survey or something.