I agree with this. Chess rating system are the most similar to Fargo and they use letters to classify players. Elsewhere in this thread I think Mike asked, rhetorically mind you, what a B chess player was. It’s a 1600-1799 rated player.
Though for simplicity I would probably create a Fargo specific scale to rather than trying to apply existing scales to Fargo. For example, 400-499 is a C player, 500-599 is a B player and so on. Then for 700+ players, 700-749 is a semi-pro, 750-800 is pro and 800+ is world class. That may not align with existing rating scales, but it’s easy to remember.
I'm not familiar with how people communicate in the chess world. I'm curious, though. I know there are various A/B/C/D classes with rating ranges that people use for tournament classes within certain organizations. We are working with a country federation that will have tournament classes based on Fargo Rating ranges. But another bigger or smaller country might find different ranges useful. I don't see some universal impetus to define a class that has universal meaning. Attached is a chart that shows some overlapping classifications. In a bizarre coincidence, it is prepared by Chess's "Dr. Dave."
With that said, though, we DO need to have ways to express a player-level qualitatively. Defining A,B,C, D, E based on Fargo Rating ranges is one way to do that. But I have two concerns.
The first is if we use letter designations that already have meaning to people (like B and A), we are inviting confusion. To someone in poland, a "B"might be someone who can't quite hang with a world-class player, and to someone in Oregon, a B might be someone who runs a table once in a blue moon when all the stars align. If you want to fix that communication problem by assigning a universal rating range, then why not create new labels that don't have baggage?
The second is we should be looking at desire paths. The country of Finland sends people out after a new snowfall (that covers up paved paths) to see where people actually walk. What path across a field do they take that might be an efficient way to get from the subway exit to a particular street and have a bit of nice lake view? What paths do students on a campus actually take between the lecture halls and the cafeteria and the dorms and the parking lots. Some colleges choose to pave no paths until they see where the grass is worn. You are kind of crowd sourcing the design like this.
In a similar way, we look to places like Oklahoma and Arizona and Wisconsin--places where everybody knows Fargo Ratings and they are used all the time. This is where everyplace is heading. What do they actually do when they want to convey qualitatively how someone plays? Oklahoma and Arizona were both entrenched five years ago with numbers. An Arizona "7" was centered around about 500, and an Oklahoma "7" was maybe 40 points higher. They used to talk about 6's and 7's and 9's, etc all the time. Do they still find numbers like that useful to represent a qualitative idea or a range? Actually no. Check out the facebook groups. There are no desire paths involving these numbers in those places. If people want to communicate speed qualitatively, they will use just one significant figure (500 level, 600 level, 700 level, etc). If they want to refine a bit, it's 400, 450, 500, 550, etc. And this works fine.
The impetus to translate from Fargo Ratings to some old local ratings just comes from people not yet accustomed to Fargo Ratings. So they can't imagine. Fargo Ratings to them seem like using metric units for speed or distance (km/hour or meters) and they just are not yet used to thinking in terms of them. It is not a good time to let this tail way this dog, imo.