On go servers like KGS, the system defaults to giving you full handicaps--a 3d player gives a 1d two stones (I believe that on either OGS or DGS, the system goes further, adjusting komi up or down to give handicaps that are even more accurate).

In contrast, at the go clubs I've played in, we're more lackadaisical about handicaps. At the beginning of a game, you might talk about who you've played against before, results, whether you took handicap from them. Perhaps you'll mention your KGS rating. If it seems close, and you haven't played before, you'll often hear "let's just play even and see how it goes". Of course these clubs didn't have formal rating systems at all (they were AGA clubs where not everyone necessarily had up to date AGA ratings). If the gap is obvious, or large enough, you'll use a handicap, but otherwise you might not sweat it. I think some tournaments handle handicaps by reducing all handicaps given by one or two stones.

The more I think about it, the less sensible the first system seems. What goal is served by trying to handicap every game to exactly 50-50? In other games I've played, you just play without a handicap. Those games don't have handicaps, so they had no choice, but the sky doesn't fall. If a game is too unbalanced that does suck, but I never catch myself thinking "this player is a 4:1 favorite against me, I better just give up." As long as the odds aren't miniscule, you will eventually win, and it will stick with you.

I'm wondering what the tradeoffs are for a system when choosing between full handicaps and diminished handicaps. It seems to me that one positive influence is that without handicaps, a quickly improving player should be able to move his rank more when playing against stronger players. Conversely, an overrated player might stay stuck at a high rank longer. Also, rank obsessed players might become more averse to playing weaker players. Lastly, it's possible that it would do bad things to the ratings math--though I don't know if there's any reason to actually be worried.

What do you think?

The entire basis of the rating system is based on the handicap system. The definition of a strength difference of "2" (e.g. 6k vs 8k, 7d vs 5d) is that with a 2-stone handicap you will win 50% of the time.

So sure, you can play with more relaxed handicap rules and there's nothing wrong with that, but just remember that ratings would not be able to exist in any kind of meaningful fashion without, or at least not with their current meaning, otherwise.

Are you sure about that? Have you proven it?

Are you sure about that? Have you proven it?

The entire basis of the rating system is based on the handicap system. The definition of a strength difference of "2" (e.g. 6k vs 8k, 7d vs 5d) is that with a 2-stone handicap you will win 50% of the time.

So sure, you can play with more relaxed handicap rules and there's nothing wrong with that, but just remember that ratings would not be able to exist in any kind of meaningful fashion without, or at least not with their current meaning, otherwise.

It is a definition that that's what the handicap means, but it's not a definition that the only way to achieve that meaning is to play properly handicapped games. So I ask again: are you sure about that? Have you proven it?

Proven what... isn't that just true? ("that"=In an accurate rating system, a properly handicapped game gives a 50% chance to each player, and this is all that the ranks mean.)

this is not entirely obvious. for example, if you have three players, from strongest to weakest, A, B, C, and A has 50% chance of beating B with x handicaps and B has 50% chance of beating C with y handicaps, proper handicap system requires A to have 50% chance of beating C with x+y handicaps, which is not a property of the rating system, but of the handicaps themselves. and it is not clear whether this is true.

and as rating systems are not primarily and only build around handicaps, it is reasonable to suppose that handicaps fits them, but you can't take it as granted