I noticed after the world open results were posted that no money floors were given. Are there no more money floors for the winners of the smaller sections of the world open. If not I guess someone could repeat winning a section.
The money prize floor threshold was raised to $4000 a few years back, due in large part to the prizes offered in the Millionaire Open. Not many other tournaments offer prizes that large.
The office would know whether any players earned $4000 or more in an Under 2000 section or prize at the World Open, which would result in a money prize floor. Some of the office staff may still be getting back to their normal routine after the US Open, so it’s possible they just haven’t been put in place yet.
And let us not forget that CCA has their own floor system to address the same individual winning the same section over and over.
All floors distort the rating system. Of course, so does sandbagging.
We don’t have a way to track prizes for money floors except by self-reporting. We do know the Grand Prix portion of a prize fund, since that’s part of the TLA and is used to compute the Grand Prix points, but since only the prizes that masters can win are included in the computation of the Grand Prix points for an event, that doesn’t tell us anything about U/2000 prizes, many of which may be paid out in other sections.
Suggestions that US Chess require all (cash) prizes to be reported as part of the tournament report usually face a hostile audience. Many TDs and organizers don’t want to do the work and many players don’t want US Chess to have that information.
Some kind of tiered approach to money prize floors might be possible. For example, if the total prize fund is between $50,000 and $100,000, then the money prize threshold for that event is $1500, if the total prize fund is between $100,000 and $200,000 then the money prize threshold for that event is $2000, etc.
There are so few money prize floors put in place that it is unlikely they have much impact on ratings. In fact, it doesn’t appear that ANY money prize floors have been entered during 2018, which either means that there weren’t any earned at the 2018 World Open or the office never got them. (I did check with Susan Kantor, who enters the money prize floors, and she said none were reported this year.)
Here’s a table of money prize floors entered by year:
2006 45
2007 32
2008 46
2009 40
2010 40
2011 26
2012 39
2013 48
2014 64
2015 16
2016 9
2017 9
A cursory glance at this year’s World Open standings show that various players should have received prize floors. Either they weren’t reported or US Chess have not got around to implementing them. (As a side note I see various players who won prizes big enough have CCA minimums which are for them the same as US Chess rated floors.)
Is there a requirement to report prizes of $4000 or more?
Yes, there is a requirement to report U/2000 prizes of $4000 or more, but not other prizes. So if someone wins $5000 as a place prize in an open event or something like an U/2100 event/prize, no reporting is needed.
Susan said no money prize floors were reported for the World Open, but it’s possible the report fell through the cracks somehow. I’m not sure if Bill G even reads the Forums any more.
There are some players who played world open and met the money floor requirement.
Mr. Antonucci may not remember, since it has been a long time since he’s submitted a tournament online, but TDs are required to declare when players earn money floors. If the uploading TD fails to do so, I’m not sure how the office is supposed to know.
Alex Relyea
It’s my understanding from reading the issues forum over the past year, that the the US Chess rating system is virtually perfect.
I’m certain I submitted the floors along with the rating report. Probably this is a technical error or someone overlooked inputting them. The problem should soon be corrected.
Bill Goichberg
The floors have now been added for the affected players. I’m not sure how this slipped through, but it is fixed now. Thanks to all for bringing this to our attention.
For what it’s worth, all these players current ratings are above these floors, but regardless the floors need to be in place and they now are.
Dave Hater
Continental Chess Association
The only perfect rating system is no ratings at all. But running a modern day tournament under those conditions would be impossible. Not just for the organizers and referees, but for the players too. For one thing, there would only be prizes for the top finishers, and it would be the final couple rounds where there would be an expectation of similar strength players against each other. I mean it would take at least the first three rounds to get even close to similar strength convergence.
Also it would make it much more difficult to study chess databases if you couldn’t ascertain if, say, one player was a level 2700 GM playing a level 2500 GM. Not to mention just doing something as simple as plotting out a person’s strength over time. Especially useful for players that are strong when they’re still a child, and look promising as a future World Champion contender.
The entire reason money floors exist is due to sandbagging, or players winning large prizes then immediately losing those rating points before the next big prize tournament so they can cash in on the next large prize fund. Something that’s been happening since the invention of a rating system.
In any event, I think $4000 is reasonable. The older money floors had been on the books for a very long time.
One idea I just had was a cumulative rating floor on a rotating 12 month basis. Say $6000 in a 12 month window would also trigger a money floor.
One can’t earn a living off 6 grand a year, but it’s also high enough that it might spur some sandbaggers to realize that they aught to be in a higher bracket anyway. It would make it harder for them to constantly lose points to sandbag while still giving them an opportunity to keep playing chess and working at their strength without feeling so pressured to jump up the next bracket. Plus I think it would harder for a sandbagger to actually keep their points low enough to keep qualifying for whatever bracket they want unless they min/maxed to just a very few tournaments a year.
Also it would mean that if they did win a large prize, but under the single tournament money floor, it means they have to win less and less as the 12 month window dragged on to keep from hitting the 6 grand money floor.
Maybe make reporting only players that win at least $500 or more. That would exclude most local tournaments that only attract local players and small prizes.
If your idea were to be implemented, and I’m not saying I support it, $600 is the logical reporting threshold because that’s the threshold for giving the recipient a 1099.
As I understand it, if someone earns $600 from the same organizer over the course of a year, in multiple events, a 1099 is still required.
True, and in such a case they wouldn’t be required to report it under the hypothetical plan. But it is impossible to pay out $600 in one event without having to do a 1099, so my recommendation is still sound.