As of April 1st, we have added peak rating floors at 1200 and 1300. This applies only to events that end on or after 4/1/2010. To earn a 1200 floor a player needs to have a post-event established rating of at least 1400, to earn a 1300 floor a player needs to have a post-event established rating of at least 1500.
I’ve gone full circle on my opinion on peak rating floors and I know support them. What about adding peak rating floors at 1100 and 1000 to prevent old men from quitting when their ability declines and rating plummets?
Also, the 2010 ratings committee report states in regards to the 1200 and 1300 floors that “the RC would monitor whether these two new floors cause any noticeable shifts in ratings.”
Have the 1200 and 1300 floors caused any noticeable shifts in ratings? Have they been successful in keeping old men from quitting when their ability declined and rating plummeted?
There’s not a lot of evidence that ratings floors lower than about 1600 have any impact on people continuing to play once they hit their floor. I doubt the ones at 1200 and 1300 have been in effect long enough to have any measurable impact.
It seems to me there is no good argument against adding peak rating floors at 1100, 1000, etc, all the way down to 200.
Bill Smythe
The winner of the expanded section gained 228 points from one four-game tournament. If a low-rated player has a rating having the last two digits in the 70s, 80s or 90s that could give a player a floor higher than the rating they had going into a tournament. In scholastic tournaments there are very few draws, so somebody just getting on the fortunate side of near-random results can end up with floor higher than their strength.
Perhaps there should be some lower limit to floors where it is unlikely that a four-game event could trigger a new floor higher than the starting rating. Maybe once the K=factor gets down to 30 or 35.
Edited to actually add the tournament link.
uschess.org/assets/msa_jooml … 8-13008826
This is an excellent counter-example.
Alex Relyea
Upon further review, the 1400 K is about 50, which needs a good four-round tournament to gain more than 200. The 800 K is about 70, where a good quad can push a person up more than 200 even without bonus points. Somewhere in there is a lower limit.
There are very few current/recent members under 25 who are within 50 points of their floor:
[code]floor 12/Below 13-15 16-19 20-24 25-64 65+
1200 9 9 7 1 19 16
1300 5 7 3 2 25 21
1400 5 6 5 3 93 123
1500 3 2 1 1 138 151
1600 0 0 0 2 176 129
1700 0 0 0 2 170 156
1800 0 0 0 1 237 116
1900 0 0 3 2 176 75
2000 0 0 4 4 163 70
2100 0 0 0 0 27 13
2200 0 0 2 0 177 51[/code]
I talked to a junior player recently who was both glad and relieved that there was no a floor at 1200. He said he could now relax, play, and experiment as much as he wanted without worrying about his rating dropping below 1000. The pressure to maintain a rating for many young players leads them to try to “protect” the rating with conservative strategies on the board and in playing whole tournaments. The pressures of status and rating inhibit them from playing freely and taking risks.
The 19th (P06) and 20th (P05) sections of that event have 5-0 section winners that would have ended up with a floor higher than their starting rating (575–>850 to get a 600 floor, and 688–>907 to get a 700 floor). Granted, in their cases they have stayed well above the floors that they might have been given.
Agreed. As a TD who has directed many novice U750 sections, a 200 point upset is not at all uncommon.
Rob Jones
Young players can have huge gains in their playing strength from one event to the next. I’ve seen a player go from having a mid 1300’s rating (and playing like one) to defeating experts in a matter of six weeks. This player also had a Top 10 finish at the National Elementary a few weeks later, though his published rating was still under 1400 for that event.