Jason Cao – CFC rating 1921

[Stuart Brammall]

Stuart - no need to "adjust" my rating to 1608, I think it will get there soon enough.

Hi Bob,
That was actually the point I was trying to make... surely Jason's rating would get to 1900 soon enough as well. In fact I don't think you'll make it all the way to 1608... just as I am not sure Jason deserves 1921.

[Stuart Brammall]

USCF players don't have to worry about losing points because of their (insane) rating floor rules...

[Stuart Brammall]

IM Raja Panjwani...who seems to have disappeared from the CFC rating list

I noticed this a while ago... his profile can be found under Rxxx Pxxxxxxx, though it does not have a rating. Anyone care to elaborate on this? Did he get banned or something? Why would someone's profile get semi-erased?

[Aris Marghetis]

USCF players don't have to worry about losing points because of their (insane) rating floor rules...

Hey Stuart, if you have the time, would you briefly describe the USCF "rating floor" rules that you are alluding to? Who knows, maybe some version of them could be considered for older guys like me, similar to Bridge "master points"?!

Thanks, and Happy New Year!

[Stuart Brammall]

Hey Stuart, if you have the time, would you briefly describe the USCF "rating floor" rules that you are alluding to? Who knows, maybe some version of them could be considered for older guys like me, similar to Bridge "master points"?!

Thanks, and Happy New Year!

Hi Aris,

My understanding of the rule is this: each player's class defines their minimum rating... these rating floors are set every 200 points, at levels divisible by 200. What it means is that if my rating goes over 1400, 1400 becomes my rating floor, and my rating can't go lower then that... then when I reach 1600 I again can't go any lower then that, and so on through 1800, 2000, 2200, and 2400. I am not sure what the lowest and highest possible floors are.

If you see an aged USCF player with a rating exactly divisible by 200, take it with a grain of salt.... it likly means he has been performing consistently at a lower level, and only maintains through the rating floor rule.

Further, though the rule is insane because you could have player's rated 2000 because of their rating floor losing to 1600 players, who recieve the full benefit of beating a 2000.

[Stuart Brammall]

I'll correct myself here:

The rating floors begin at 1200 and exist every hundred points... with a player's floor being set to (peak rating - 200) and then rounded down to the nearest hundred.

[Aris Marghetis]

Hi Stuart, thanks for taking the time to explain this. I understand why you think that is insane, as it incorporates an obvious aggregate inflationary component when someone beats someone whose rating cannot go down.

However, I could live with some type of less inflationary mechanism for CFC ratings, if and only if we reach consensus that it would increase tournament participation by (mostly non-junior, etc.) players whose ratings have peaked.

I do not play bridge competitively, but from what I understand, they have some sort of system that genuinely encourages people to keep getting rated.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

his profile can be found under Rxxx Pxxxxxxx, though it does not have a rating. Anyone care to elaborate on this? Did he get banned or something? Why would someone's profile get semi-erased?

There is another name with xxxxxxx: http://www.chess.ca/memberinfoSQL.asp?CFCN=122954

[Stuart Brammall]

However, I could live with some type of less inflationary mechanism for CFC ratings, if and only if we reach consensus that it would increase tournament participation by (mostly non-junior, etc.) players whose ratings have peaked.

I do not play bridge competitively, but from what I understand, they have some sort of system that genuinely encourages people to keep getting rated.

This is a view which I have heard from a number of people who I have much respect for... though I cannot say I agree with it. I feel the rating system has a clear mandate and that is to provide a accurate representation of a person's strength, for the purpose of doing things like making sections/pairings, selecting qualifiers for closed events, ect.

However....
Would not a nationwide Grand Prix achieve your goal? Players could earn grand prix points for participation, and good results versus their peers. You would never lose grand prix points... there could also be prizes to motivate participation.

[Stuart Brammall]

Yeah, I believe that is Dilip Panjwani.