Maybe ratings should consider only 15 last games or more but only if they are won games. In that case 1vs1 ladder would be more interesting IMO.

^ I think this would mess up the top and bottoms of the ladder, giving inflated ratings to some, and would underestimate others. While it may make the ladder more interesting I think it would reflect less on the skill of the player.

I do agree, however that it would be better if all players have roughly the same number of games counting towards their rating, instead of some people with 15 and others with 40 games. I just think 15 is too low to get a good sample.

There's 14 players with over 2000 points. I'm impressed, to say the least.