37A - Underrated Juniors

[Bob Gillanders]

Thanks Hal. We heard you the first time.

So it wasn't that long ago?
We can do some tweaking of the rating system easily, like adding bonus points, but any serious overhaul would be costly.

I still like Paul's suggestion.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

I think the solution is to establish rating floors: a player's rating cannot fall below a certain level - example between 100 to 200 below his highest ever rating - no matter how bad they do.

This has been done in the past and also currently by several internet or live clubs and organizations. It could reduce the fear of adults to play underrated juniors because they could lose several rating points.

Let's say a player reaches his highest peak @ 2200. His rating can never go below 2000 as life goes by. It is not even so far fetched to understand this! While father "Time" might reduce that player's ability to compete at a certain level, his chess knowledge will never be lost, right?

Once the above is in place, juniors would get enough chances to raise their ratings by playing, so no freebie points are required at anytime!...

[Lyle Craver]

One needs to be careful on this - my highest lifetime rating was 1905 so given the suggested floor I could never slip before 1705. I've lost enough games since then to have earned my present rating....

[Valer Eugen Demian]

One needs to be careful on this - my highest lifetime rating was 1905 so given the suggested floor I could never slip before 1705. I've lost enough games since then to have earned my present rating....

Let's exaggerate and assume you play really bad and your rating falls (under current conditions) to 1500. Is that representing your TRUE chess knowledge? Not at all. Other countries combine these rating floors with categories; again once you reach a certain level (category) this can never be taken away from you. Giving away nice certificates for each one of them is also a nice touch and benefit of being a member!...

[Christopher Mallon]

I always liked the old USCF system where you had a rating Class, and you earned those just as you would earn an IM title.

For example, to earn the Class A title, you need 3 events > 1900 performance, and an 1800 rating.

What exactly does that sort of system have to do with UNDERrated players though?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

What exactly does that sort of system have to do with UNDERrated players though?

Maybe that players who would loose to an underrated player would not loose rating points :/ The system may be depended on a number of played games. 1-100 no sinking; 101-150 readjustment. 151-... no sinking, etc

[Christopher Mallon]

Well, modern computers can easily keep track of every game someone has played - something they couldn't do before. So It would be easy to flag any 100-game trends, say, and send them for attention of the rating auditor to determine if someone's class should be lowered.

The classes made class prizes REALLY easy too, didn't have to worry nearly so much about sandbagging.

[Stuart Brammall]

Rating floors are the most rediculous idea every implemented in a statistical system.
They do nothing to correct under-rated players, and only serve to protect the egos of players on the decline.

It would be fine to grant a player a class, but let there rating go below that level anyway. For example a player with peak rating 1950 could still be called class A, even when there rating goes down to 1500. What I am trying to say is that class and rating need not be locked together... in the same way that Lawrence day can consitently perform at 2100, but still be an IM.

Will that be sufficient protection for those whos egos are too big to accept that their strength has decreased? Probably not... but outright lying to them through the use of rating floor is shameful. If you perform at 1500 consistently then you are a 1500 player, even if your peak was 2000.

[Bob Gillanders]

Thank you Stuart.

My peak rating is 2140. Really, look it up! (pause, while everyone goes to the CFC website to confirm this startling fact). Now I do realize that occasionally I do perform below that level (my opponents can confirm this!), giving me a rating floor of say 2000 would mean for me a lifetime ban from the U2000 section where I enjoy playing and where I am competitive (more or less).

Rating floors - bad idea.

[Rob Clark]

I'm interested to see the rating auditor's take on the current state of affairs. I think his input should be sought, so I agree with Mr. Barron.