The problem with systems that use something beyond win-loss to set ratings is that the details of complicated score sheets are easy to manipulate. Just miss a lot, or mark down a few or a dozen extra misses per game. This is especially easy if you are somewhat underrated to start with and you can miss until your over-matched opponent starts to have a chance to get out.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. If you want to manipulate the data on the score sheets, you will have to get your opponent to cooperate, since they have a score sheet too.
Even systems that count only win-loss can be sandbagged, but it's much harder. You have to actually lose matches. Most people aren't that patient. Some are, though, and you have to watch for them.
Wait a minute, I thought it was just a simple, open formula. Watch for them? Who is watching, and what can they do about it?
You would be surprised how patient some players/teams are. Some "prepare" for years. The "preparation" is the game for them, it keeps them interested. Winning is secondary, until the big prize is within reach. I gave you the formula for cheating win-loss systems. That formula can also be used to cheat systems that actually try to measure your ability and not just your average performance. However, to cheat those systems you also have to hide your ability when you win - simply losing isn't enough. From that perspective, the win-loss systems are actually EASIER to cheat.
This tactic is generally only useful to "prepare" for a big playoff or championship, and if your bad play during the season keeps you out of the big event, you get no benefit from your manipulation. A simple way to counter this tactic is to give more weight to performance in big events.
And now we have the response to the OP's statement:
"To judge someone off 1-2 games and move them up or down at these bigger events is rediculous"
It's not ridiculous, it's why cheaters cheat.
Every system starts off simple. Simple works on a small scale. Simple works when everyone knows everyone, or at least when those in charge know everyone. Simple works when there is no large prize to attract cheaters.
When you get bigger, and you no longer know everyone, and your prize is big enough to invite cheaters, simple breaks down quickly. You have already hinted at changes that may have to occur to combat cheaters should they appear in the simple systems you support. Simple changes, yes, but over time the simple changes add up and the system itself becomes more and more complex. Seriously, the only way to avoid it is to stay small.
