Originally Posted by
Garland Best
I firmly believe that rating corrections should naturally occur within the system, and not by bypassing the system. As such I believe that the role of the rating auditor is to confirm that the system is actually working as described and not make ad-hoc changes to one's rating. This whole thing was bollixed.
Best solution someone suggested to me was to leave the ratings of juniors as-is, but if their ratiings were below 1000, then use 1000 as the "rating floor" when calculating the effect on an opponent's rating. The result would be that those with ratings below 1000 points would add points to the system as they improved, not take them away.
Regardless, any solution should be STUDIED and not randomly implemented. It appears there are skilled people out there for evaluating these things. Roger Patterson has shown a talent for it, and I'm mathematicaslly inclined. My weakness is a lack of knowledge on ELO`s theories and system. We would also need someone with the programming skills to generate the routines and then run them on the existing database of results gathered in the CFC rating database, and analyse the results.