You do get bonus points -- instead of losing in an early round you move on to later rounds and get more points from the tournament.

The big problem in my opinion is that a big win will fall out of your ranking calculation after a year, which can lead to a big drop in rankings without any current activity. You can solve this by using an exponential average that considers all past results, but weights them at an ever decreasing percentage as time goes by. Many financial calculations are done this way.

Your first point is absolutely correct, although I do quite like the idea of a player getting bonus points - in addition to the tournament points - as an extra reward for beating a highly ranked player.

However, your second point sounds like a way of keeping Peter Nicol in the top 10 for the next 20 years! I can think of one current top 20 player who would probably like the sound of your suggestion, though - no names mentioned, of course!

With an exponential average depending on how you weight past results they can actually get diminished very quickly. It mostly would serve the purpose of eliminating past results more smoothly than the current system.

Just replying to one of the previous posts. The British Nationals do not award WISPA ranking points. So Alison Waters wouldn't recieve any reward for performance. Only some of the lower-ranked players take a few minimal points from the Nationals.