The main advantage is the increased reliability and thus increased competitiveness in the ratings. Pool ratings are looked on as more official, meaningful ratings precisely because they cannot be even subconsciously manipulated (and the fact that the time controls are absolutely uniform--nobody is going to be playing 45 45 games and be in the same rating pool as someone that plays 8 0).
Having measures that prevent someone from "boosting" is not the same as having every single game played in that rating pool played under tournament conditions--ie, you can't pick an opponent from a graph/list (deciding, oh I want an easier game this time, or nah, I'm not playing him, he always gets me in the mouse race, etc.). Rating systems are actually ONLY considered accurate if you cannot select opponents. Once every game ever played in that pool is played under tournament conditions, the rating jump up in importance. There is no cloud of suspicion around someone's rating. If they have it, they earned it (discounting engine abuse, of course).
This is the main advantage. The super simple "click the giant button, start playing" thing is just an extra advantage that makes it even more attractive (and yes, it is easier to just push a big 5 button than it is to click create game, blah blah blah).
As far as fragmenting the userbase, I don't think that's a concern at all. ICC doesn't have issues with that and has 1/4 the online userbase that we do here. Not to mention people still play non-pool games all the time.
But really, if you ask any serious ICC player which rating is more important on ICC, their "blitz" rating or their "5-min" rating, 100% of them will tell you their 5-min rating is way more important. It's why when you watch curtains stream, or ChessExplained stream, or kingscrusher stream, they aren't just seeking a game, they are playing in the pools. It just becomes THE place for serious competition.
Having measures that prevent someone from "boosting" is not the same as having every single game played in that rating pool played under tournament conditions--ie, you can't pick an opponent from a graph/list (deciding, oh I want an easier game this time, or nah, I'm not playing him, he always gets me in the mouse race, etc.). Rating systems are actually ONLY considered accurate if you cannot select opponents. Once every game ever played in that pool is played under tournament conditions, the rating jump up in importance. There is no cloud of suspicion around someone's rating. If they have it, they earned it (discounting engine abuse, of course).
This is the main advantage. The super simple "click the giant button, start playing" thing is just an extra advantage that makes it even more attractive (and yes, it is easier to just push a big 5 button than it is to click create game, blah blah blah).
As far as fragmenting the userbase, I don't think that's a concern at all. ICC doesn't have issues with that and has 1/4 the online userbase that we do here. Not to mention people still play non-pool games all the time.
But really, if you ask any serious ICC player which rating is more important on ICC, their "blitz" rating or their "5-min" rating, 100% of them will tell you their 5-min rating is way more important. It's why when you watch curtains stream, or ChessExplained stream, or kingscrusher stream, they aren't just seeking a game, they are playing in the pools. It just becomes THE place for serious competition.