I'm going to propose an Option I method that incorporates a simple mod that bring it somewhat in line with current CP numbers. This will also give us a chance to see how it is affected by different play styles..

Slight mod to bring the numbers in-line...  Award 1 CP for every 50 GR points achieved above 1000.

Take the GR for a given board. Subtract 1000, divide by 50 and round down.

Here's a break down of how it would affect the scores of the current top three active CP leaders.. 

A quick look at Cona Chris's stats suggests that his strategy of playing a board to #1, then moving on to the next nets a significant ICP hit. CC receives VERY few incremental ICPs.  Amidon37. in contrast plays many more boards and picks up a lot of incremental points. Mad Bomber takes a 9% hit, but easily keeps his #1 spot.

If Cona Chris's score seems inequitable and people feel it is appropriate to reward him more for his accomplishements, Korrun's idea of awarding additional points for top positions has merit.  I'm less a fan of this because it adds a layer of complexity, which I believe should be avoided, but I am not opposed to the idea if it is equitable.  Korrun originally suggested an arbitrary bonus point system, but I'm just going to throw out that if there are to be any additional points awarded, the numbers should not be extravagant.  Cons Chris is the #1 player on 22 boards - Mad Bomber on 5.  I could see the top 5 players getting an additional 5,4,3,2,1 point(s) for their accomplishments, but again, it's harder to understand and showing it in the stats is messy business, not to mention that there would necessarily need to be minimum GR thresholds, etc..   Depending on how much we want to revamp things, it has been noted by others that awarding points for top positions makes it more like what we have now.

The more I think about it, the more I don't like the idea of extra points for top spots.  Should the top WGWF player (3000) get the same amount of bonus ICPs as the top Crystal Caves player (1500)?  That's part of the flaw with the current system, and that 2:1 GR ratio does not even come close to the ratios of games played or # of competitors on those boards respectively.  I can think of 3 very different approaches without much thought, but the bottom line is that any system tacked on to compensate the top players is by design going to be arbitrary.

1. additional based on the % of standard

2. static numbers with minimal requirements

3. multiplier based on # of players "in the black"

Do you award bonus points to the top player only? ..the top 5, 10, 20? It's a convoluted problem with no simple and easily understood solution, and precisely what most of us don't like about the current system.

Cross-posting here..

20 is the divisor for calculating GR, so dividing gross ICPs by 20 has an H-Rating feel to it by awarding 1 point for every net win against an equal opponent, and the rational for the divisor is anything but arbitrary. The simple ICP definition..

 Award 1 CP for every 20 GR points achieved above 1000.

This would give mad bomber 1540 ICPs.  So, though it might be equivocation to say that he has won a net 1500 more games won than lost against his peers, it feels about right. Keep in mind we are throwing out all boards where he has less than 1020 points.