Okay if you could play in a system using one or the other instead of the current and proposed systems that still have both which would you prefer?

The Age Based system would have breaks every ten years
(10 and under, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40 etc.) and you would obviously have to play in your age group regardless of skill much like the current pro masters/grandmasters etc. where age and not ratings allows 830 gm's to compete against 1000 gm's.

The ratings based system would have four or five divisions where players of all ages compete in divisions based solely on their rating i.e skill level. Players may or may not be allowed to play in the division above their ratings. Divisions would be approximately 50 points each. 970 or 950+, 920-870 or 900-850 etc.

Both systems would pay out in ca$h all the way down the ladder.

I doubt many people want players to be forced to play in a division where only people of the same age compete. Our current system gives you the option to play in a ratings based division: ie Rec, Int or Adv OR an age protected division.

Wow, with all this skill at manipulative and leading communication, I bet there's a spot as a political spin doctor or poll writer - no wait, probably just a message board poll writer, sorry.

I wonder if anyone's done PhD work yet on the propaganda methods of nattering message board nabobs ?

Do you still beat your wife ?

What would these divisions be playing for? Cash for all, cash for top only and plastic for the lower, or cash for the top and trophy for the lower? This is also a pretty poor way to break it up IMO.

I like competing as an intermediate at age 44. I wish I was good enough for advanced. If I were to play advanced I might play advanced master because I know many of the players.
I am satisfied with the way things are, but if anyone ever comes out with something else I would give it a try to see how it plays out.