That’s 'cause History started over in 1991. Actually, a peak rating earned in the 1970s doesn’t mean much of anything now, since most of the players against which it was earned are pushing up daisies.
Why did those last few words sound like they were uttered by John Wayne?
I feel this needs revisiting…Look at the result of an unrated player in the U1800 section of the 2013 World Open. While it’s true that this player only tied for first and most likely did not get a full share of first prize, it is strange to me that this player was allowed to play in this section at all. If there was a foreign rating then unr was inaccurate and if there was none, how was this placement determined, by dartboard perhaps??
CCA uses prize limits to control sandbagging. This player was limited in the amount of $$$ they could win; i.e., according to the back cover of the June Chess Life he could, at best, only claim $2000. First place was = $13,000 (with 9 other prizes to follow) and the UN could get no U1700 prize in that U1800 section. It appears a money limit is another method of dealing with UN sandbaggers that is already in use from the premier organizer in the USA.
The director received the entry fee and the money rules were known in advance. Still I would have hated to be a properly rated player in this section and fall victim to such an “unrated” player. This situation should be earmarked as anything goes so long as it is made known in advance. The premier organizer in the USA is consistent and fair along with providing great conditions for chess. My response was not to be critical of him, rather it was to support my theory of “baptism by fire” for so-called unrated player who happen upon big money tournaments.
I believe a slightly easier way is to look at the “Show Ratings Graph History”, and it nicely prints your peak rating at the spot you reached it. Still only covers post 1991, but a nice feature.
This.
Why mess things up for perfectly innocent unrated players, and others in the Open section which would then have all the beginners, just so a 1599 can win a prize that he could not get if his rating were 1601?
OP’s solution does not address what we on the Rating Committee spend more time on, which is detecting players who lose on purpose to get existing ratings down below section and prize cutoffs. Do people think the fake-unrated problem (guy has a master rating in Iceland or something) is much bigger than this?
Lets just do ranks like Go:
*9 levels of ranks for amateur , an 7 ranks for professional players. Then at the top level, just have a list of grandmasters based on play. For example, a Rank 7 GM (skill level might be ranked in the top 100 players list, otherwise, they’d just be rank 7 “GM skill level”.
At the amateur level, they’d be rank 4 for an average player. Once they get a rank, you can’t go back to a lower level for a minimum of 5 years. There could be alpha designations between ranks to give a finer estimate for the player, plus a way to gauge improving (or worsening) play within a rank. For example. 4a would be 1400, 4J might be 1500, 4Z might be 1599 if compared to the old system.
A tad different with GM’s, since they’d all be professional, moving up and down the skill rank wouldn’t make a difference other than paring since they’d be playing in the top or “Open” level anyway. The GM ranks would be useful for paring purposes only and obviously the “top 100 list”. In fact, just to make it more coveted, have only the top 10 players on the top 100 list have Rank 7. -Don’t bother with alpha splits like in amateurs.
I’d say anything less than 800 would be “zero” , but roughly 800 (1a) should be a bare minimum rank official rating. Maybe the USCF could make an actual test for that.
Unrated does not necessarily equal beginner. An open tournament is just that, open to whoever has the entry fee and meets the membership requirements for rating. If players are disturbed by playing “beginners” I suggest they study harder, gain rating points, and get invited to exclusive events. Better yet…they should just organize their own precious tournaments.