Why Chess Needs A New Ranking System

Here is a prime example of why chess tournament rankings suck:

5 William Lim unr L3 L7 D11 B-- W13 W12 3.5
6 Joseph H Pahk 1502 W4 L2 W8 W11 L1 L3 3.0

So, Lim scored higher than Pahk. Well, Lim was unrated and Pahk was a solid 1502. So, Lim had to be good, right?

Wrong. Lim got wins against the #12 and #13 finishers. Let's take a look at them:

11 Cynthia Langseth 789 L2 B-- D5 L6 L12 W13 2.5
12 Kathy Schneider 723 B-- L4 L7 L10 W11 L5 2.0
13 Barbara Deis unr L9 L10 B-- L8 L5 L11 1.0

Now, let's be honest. Deis is unrated so who knows her skill level (unrateds are usually n00bs). Kathy Schneider, a very nice woman I've met, has been playing for years and frankly never wins games in tournaments.

These were Lim's only two wins. He also got a draw against the third to worst finisher, another extremely low-ranked player. That's 2.5 points, so where did the other point come from?

A BYE. A free point because there was an odd number of players and he couldn't get a matchup.

Now, let's look at Pahk. He had not two wins but THREE wins. And look, he beat the #4 place finisher! Not shown here, but that's Rob Bucholtz, who's rated over 2000!! That is an extremely exceptional win considering that's 500 rating points above him and that is a BIG gap!

He also beat #11, whom Lim could only draw.

However, While Pahk was busy being a 2000-rated player, Lim got a free point for going to McDonald's for lunch and resting his brain so he could beat the bottom 2 players.

According to these rankins, Lim did BETTER. Are you f***ing kidding me? Seriously...USCF...you need a better way to score these tournaments. Dear god.