I was reading the new match rules and everything seems to make sense until I go to the last paragraph:
Finally, any player whose rating is at that player’s floor and plays in a match will be considered to have submitted a request to have that floor lowered by 100 points. The USCF ratings department will review the player’s tournament history to decide if the floor should be lowered.
I have a few questions about how this is applied.
Can a player playing a match for rating ask that floor not be lowered, regardless of the result of the match?
Would the decision to lower the floor be based strictly on the floored player losing points in the match and having a tournament history that would indicate that lowering the floor would have been justified if the player requested a floor drop under non-match circumstances?
Example: Player A has a floor of 1800 that he has been on for most of the time in a 5 year period. Maybe picks up a few points here and there, but typically drops back down to floor and stays there. Player A plays a 4 game rated match with player B who is rated 1650. Each player wins 2 games, so using the calculations the 2 wins would be worth 6.8 points a piece. The two losses -16 each, for a net loss of 18 points. With a lowered floor his new rating would be 1782. So now he could have some other poor results and find himself at 1700? Would losing 18 points automatically cause the player’s floor to be dropped, if the other criteria for a floor drop request was met?
Same players and ratings, but the 1650 wins the mach 4-0, so now the rating points lost would be 64, but with the 50 point limit it would be treated as -50. Is this player pretty much assured that his floor is going down?
I would assume gaining rating points, even just a few would make a floor drop consideration moot.
The second part of the question regards what might possibly constitute a rated match.
Chess club A has challenged chess club B to a Home and Home match with 6 boards per club. First round will be at club A’s playing site on Monday night. 2nd round will be at club B’s site on Wednesday night. The same 6 players participate in both rounds, eaching playing white and black against the same opponent. Would these board match ups be considered 6 rated matches and be subjected to rated match rules including the floor drop possibility for floored players?
I would think not. There was a reason when they implemented this rule (though I’m not sure of the specifics) and I don’t think it is wise to bend the rules at ‘request’.
The way I understand it, if you are on your floor and play a match, the appropriate ‘powers that be’ will look at your history and if they deem appropriate lower your floor as if you had requested it just as you can request it today. So you are not guaranteed to lower or keep your floor. The possibility does exhist that they may lower your floor even if you gain a few points because of your ‘past history’ of staying on your floor.
If someone has a 1900 floor and has definately had an 1820 performance rating over the last few years, its not their ‘right’ to keep their inflated ratings. The USCF would like for the rating system to be as close as possible (though this would be very hard to make it accurate all the time) so its good to lower people’s floors in different situations.
2b. I don’t think that would apply because a match is a prearranged set of games between two individuals. school matches, it would seem wrong to judge it as 6 individual matches. I may be wrong though.
Think the reason for the rating floor for the match, as it would give inflation for the person that does not have to worry about the floor. Say you have a person on their rating floor, if you lose the match and say lose big – the other person will gain 50 points. If you play four matches with the same person, the other person can gain 200 points. What does the person on their rating floor lose, nothing.
The rating floor idea is a good idea, but it would help a person sandbag their rating. Say I wanted to sandbag my rating, just play a match and my new rating floor would be 100 points down. The new match rules is great for sandbaggers, as you can get your rating lower without asking.
That’s why the rating floor thing is NOT automatic. The idea behind the new rules (as I understand it) is to discourage ratings manipulation. They can review the results to determine what (if any) action should be taken.
For the purposes of the match rules, a match is any section which consists of 2 or more games between two players or a single game between two players that is not the result of pairing or house player situations arising in a larger event. (TDs are asked to identify these as matches if they were pre-arranged contests between two players, not the result of pairing or house player situations.)
However, any event (which would span multiple sections) in which two players face each other more than two times can also be treated as a match between those two players, at the discretion of the USCF office.
This is to forestall some possible ways around the match rules, such as having 10 games between two players and one or two games involving a third player. In extreme cases, TDs and affiliates reporting events that are obviously intended to circumvent the match rules may be subject to sanctions.
A player who is at his floor and participates in a match will be considered to have submitted a request to have his floor lowered by 100 points. This will trigger a review of that player’s recent tournament history to see if a lower floor is appropriate. (The USCF office can, for example, run a test of that player’s recent events without a floor in place to see what impact the floor has had on his rating.)
This is the same procedure that is used when a floored player requests his floor be lowered. Most, but not all, of those requests are granted after a review of the player’s recent tournament history.
Someone who just has a bad event or two is not likely to have his floor lowered, even if he plays in a match. It takes a consistent pattern of below-floor performances over a number of events and a long period of time (such as six months or longer) or a specific situation. (The office recently honored a lower floor request from a player who has lost his sight and as a result is no longer playing at the same strength he had when he was sighted. But there was still a history of events demonstrating the lowered playing strength.)
An automated script has been developed (it will probably be run once a month) to identify floored players with recently rated matches A test of this script over the last six months worth of ratings activity identified over a dozen players who would have had their floors reviewed as a result of their match play. These players have been notified of the change in USCF match rules.
This paragraph resolves your issue of the one player playing and losing 4 matches to the same person.
Both players in a match must have established and published ratings, and those ratings must be no more than 400 points apart as of the most recent published ratings for those players when the match is held. A player may gain or lose no more than 50 rating points in a match. Also, a player may only gain or lose up to 100 rating points through match play during any 180 day period, and may only gain or lose up to 200 rating points through match play during any three year period.
It would take 3 years for one player to “give” another player 200 points via rated matches.
I’m not sure using matches to sandbag a new floor is necessarily going to happen. It also depends where your floor is. My floor is 1700, so even if my floor is dropped another 100 points I’m still going to have to play in the Under 1800 section. The only way this would help me into a new class is if I play a rated match get my floor dropped to 1600. Hit that floor, stay there for what ever number of months, play another rated match, and get another floor drop to 1500. I suspect the office probably would not give another floor drop based on another rated match being played.
Personally I don’t want a floor drop even though if one looked at my results I deserve to be given a floor drop. Sometimes I’m convinced I’m the reason they lowered the floor another 100 points back in 1997. For the recod I hit the new floor in 5 days after it went into effect.
Well you can play a rated match twice within the 180 days. It is just how fast you want to send in the match, or how few games within a match. One weekend you can play a rated match and lose the match 0-6. Next weekend, lose the match again 0-6. Your opponent should gain 100 points in two weekends. In 180 days from the last match, just perform the same results. So in less than 200 days your opponent will gain the 200 points.
Say I wanted to sandbag my rating. Just play bad at a number of tournaments and get my rating down to my rating floor. Play a two game match with a friend, and my new floor is 1400. Than I just have to go to a tournament and play very bad, till my rating hits 1400. Find a friend, play a two game match at my new rating floor of 1400. Than my rating floor will drop to 1300. If you want to sandbag, and get around the rating floors – play a match. If you want to sandbag, play two matches and one tournament. That would get me into class D, than play in a big tournament and hope to win the class D prize.
The rating floors was designed to stop sandbagging, the match rules are there to get around the rating floor. The new match rules was not my idea, it was Mike Nolans idea.
Actually, the majority of the new match rules came from USCF President Bill Goichberg. I made several suggestions regarding his proposals, some of which he accepted, others he did not, and then I think the Board made a few more revisions before final passage of the new rules in February.
Someone who wants to take a year or longer to lower his rating to the point where he would qualify for a lowered floor in the hopes of winning a big prize is probably not going to be detected.
The plan is to show floor changes as part of someone’s MSA record, TDs can then decide whether they agree with a lowered floor and possibly require such a player to play up.
I guess that would be long term planning on someone’s part to prepare to win their new section at the 2008 World Open, after succeeding in getting their floor dropped enough to enter the lower class.
Bill’s CCA ratings that he uses for some players is an example of a TD/organizer opting to not accept a player’s rating at a given point.
Is there a lower limit on the length of a match? Is it required to be an even number? For that matter, is it OK to have a match in which one player always plays the same color?
Sometimes I’m convinced I’m the reason they lowered the floor another 100 points back in 1997. 
For the recod I hit the new floor in 5 days after it went into effect.