In days when a computer occupied we used a simple ladder system
I think it was based 16 spread point. Each game was worth at most 16 point with maybe winning against a player with 200 points more then you would get you 16 points. But if he won much less for him.
The details however escape me. Anyone remember? Anyone have a link.
It used to be in the Rulebook but I doubt it is there now.
If you want to go quite a ways back then there was the system where a decisive game between two players rated the same resulted in a 16-point change and a draw between those two players resulted in a 0-point change. For every 25 points of rating difference, the lower-rated player had 1 added to the change and the higher-rated player had 1 subtracted from the change (there was a 30-point maximum and 2-point minimum to the change). A draw also had the same adds and subtractions (14-point maximum and no minimum).
Examples.
1600 draws 1875 and they become 1611 and 1864 (0+(275/25)=11 point change).
1900 beats 1775 and they become 1907 and 1768 (16-(225/25)=7 point change).
1300 beats 1600 and they become 1328 and 1572 (16+(300/25)=28 point change)
1500 beats 2100 and they become 1530 and 2070 (16+(600/25)=40 but capped at 30 point change)
2200 beats 1400 and they become 2202 and 1398 (16-(800/25)=-16 but floored at 2 point change)
There’s some discussion on ladders in the Guide to Scholastic Chess, which needs to be updated as it still has forms, rates, phone numbers and addresses from 2003 in it.
However, a version from 2003 is available at archive.uschess.org/scholastic/2003SCguide.pdf.
There’s a longer discussion on ladder systems in Kenneth Harkness’s “Official Chess Handbook”.
Exactly what is a ladder style tournament?
I know Yahoo Chess had a ladder system in place, but I never played in any of the ladder games. (Actually, I haven’t been to Yahoo Chess in years, so no idea if they still have a ladder system in place).
Whats the difference between a ladder system, and just straight rating?
I think what you’re looking for is a tournament where everyone is ranked, and then a player challenges the player above him for his position. The winner gets the higher spot, while the loser gets the lower spot. Repeat as necessary. I’m not exactly sure what this has to do with rating, unfortunately.
Alex Relyea
Ladders were proxies for a real rating system, as they were easy to maintain, didn’t require a lot of math skills to run and gave a sense of relative strength among the players in that pool.
Whether one considered the range of players one could challenge on the ladder a plus or a minus probably depended on one’s perspective.
These days, computers are so readily available that nearly anyone can run a formula-based ratings system within a pool of players. Whether those ratings are comparable to other ratings systems with other players in them is a separate issue.
I ran a simple ladder for our club back in the early 70’s. We had about 20 players on the ladder. We started off using USCF ratings to rank the players. Unrated players started at the bottom if they were new to the game. I don’t remember if I ranked seasoned players that did not have a USCF rating at the bottom or not.
A player simply could issue a challenge to a player within 5 spots on the ladder. They would play one game (flip for colors). The challenge would be issued one week prior to the next club meeting which gave a little time to prepare for the game. If the lower-ranked player won, he/she took the challenged player’s spot and the challenged player moved down a spot.
The best ladder system I’ve seen is one that the Greater Peoria Chess Federation runs. You can investigate their ladder at gpcf.net/ladder/ladder08.htm
Some intriguing details about this ladder system is that everyone starts off with a 1600 rating at the beginning of the year (a new ladder each year) and USCF rated games and unrated challenge games between ladder particpants qualify for ladder games. The administrator of this ladder has said to me that since they have frequent rated games throughout a typical week at their facility that these type contests account for a majority of the games.
I really like this idea of using rated and unrated games. Some chess players don’t play tournament chess but still would enjoy some organized activity. This seems like a pretty good ladder system to me. It gives the unrated players a chance to compete in an organized setting either with USCF rated players or other unrateds.
A chess club is composed of tournament players and non-tournament players. A good club will offer some organized competition for every type member.
My club uses a system that restarts every year. Everybody is initially ranked by USCF rating. We have one ladder game per week (not USCF rated). We use 1 vs 2 pairings based on ranking and the ranking is sorted by points scored, then games played, cumulative score, and finally rating. You play four different opponents before playing a person again. This avoid any challenge system and delay in playing a ladder game. There is an incentive to play on a regular basis, so participation is promoted. At the end of the ladder season the top eight on the ladder qualify for a USCF-rated round robin competing for a traveling trophy, the second eight qualify for a different USCF-rated round robin for a smaller traveling trophy, and the remainder can play in a five-round Swiss being held concurrently with the other two sections.
Our club also belongs to the Chicago Industrial Chess League. We have a variance where defending the club’s honor in a league match during a ladder week can be used as that week’s result in the ladder.
We also mix things up a little bit by having some non-ladder weeks for a quick-rated Game/10 night, a quick-rated Game/15 night, a quick-rated Game/29 quad night, a non-rated blitz night and a five-week regular-rated club championship.
The only calculations in the ladder are counting the points scored, the games played and the cumulative tie-break.
And what generally happens is that if the player stays long enough they tend to convert to USCF members. This years 1st and 2nd place finishers didn’t join the Ladder until last October yet still managed to finish at the top. It was close and wasn’t actually decided until the last Monday of the year when the 1 & 2 ranked players etc played two Game 30 games (non USCF rated in this case vs the previous 4 Monday’s of USCF rated games) , one with white and one with black.
And yes the inflationary factor is deliberately built into this Ladder system. 
I agree with you that USCF membership can be a by-product. I’d call this a relatively passive approach to encouraging players to become USCF members which I like very much. I think too often new players are encouraged to graduate to the next level (tournament chess) too quickly and when some of them do they just wind up discouraged when they don’t find quick success. A ladder seems to get them ready for more “official” organized competition.
Does the ladder winner receive “bragging rights” or some other sort of prize? I’m asking because I’d like to know what you think is the primary reason for the success of your ladder.
We have three traveling trophies of which the ladder winner isn’t one of them.
Although all the games played for these trophies are reflected in the ladder. The ladder winner doesn’t even qualify for our city championship invitational, so the only real bragging right is the mere fact of being the Ladder champion at the end of the year.
The main thing that the ladder does is that it gives more meaning to the games played than mere skittle games. Yet at the same time the Ladder games that aren’t also USCF rated are a little more shall we say lighthearted than USCF rated games. Generally they are at faster time controls, score keeping isn’t required, and talking during the game isn’t totally forbidden. But we still play touch move etc.
Initially years ago when we started the Ladder there were two of them, a speed ladder and a slow ladder. Eventually they got merged into the form we have today with the weighted I guess you would call it k. (Up to game 20 is 1k, up to game 40 2k, up to game 60 3k and everything over that is 4k)
This way if someone plays 5 rounds of game 5 their overall rating on the ladder is close to that of 1 round of game 80.
Initially and for that matter it still could be done, players could challenge each other and play for Ladder points but in reality that hasn’t happened in a long time. Probably because we have all of the structured games. The inflationary part comes from the fact that if you play in the night’s event you get 15 bonus points. This came about because at one time a player was avoiding play so as not to lose points, only playing when he felt he would be opposing weaker players. So instead of punishing that we reward the people that do play.
You get the bonus points but you still have to be good enough to hold on to them.
Our club has skittles games that are usually played without a clock eventhough we provide clocks as well as sets. Some of the members that attend our weekly meetings have played rated chess for many years and some have not. So we usually just play casual skittles games. I think we would benefit from a ladder like yours that doesn’t require scorekeeping but does require observance of the touch move rule. It’s still casual enough. I like the fact that your ladder is somewhere in between skittles and rated USCF games.
You should be commended for finding something that works well for your club!