After reading the discussion about rating floors and thinking about the days when I was a expert, I wanted to throw out a discussion topic about the new rating formula. I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to support my idea, but I was wondering if the Ratings Committee ever considered this idea, when coming up with the latest formula.
The latest rating formula does a great job of moving fast-improving low-rated players to the lever where they belong. But, I wonder if some of the long-established Master/Experts that were hit by ratings deflation are being double-hit by the new formula. I see a lot of players from Michigan that were Masters/Experts 10+ years ago, but are now Experts/Class A. With the rating stablization at these higher levels of the new rating formula, it is nearly impossible for these players to get back to where they were prior to the rating deflation.
Hopefully, my point comes across OK. Is this idea valid? Is there any way to correct it? Or do we just accept these new rating levels as ratings are only relative? I would to hear what others think about this.
We have been in the state of Michigan for a long time. My first major tournament was the “Motor City Open in 1981” and my first tournament was in the city of Jackson Michigan. Do not know the name of my first tournament, only recall that V.E. Vandenburg came to the event, think he was the director.
There are a number of players being on the top 100 list of Michigan players since myself was a scholastic player, even some being always current since my first tournament. There are two players from Michigan that did play against Bobby Fisher back in 1964, one lost and one got a draw and they are still around and still play chess. They have like myself have gotten much older, and with our age we do not play as fast or wise as our youth. Most on that list started out in the 1970’s, and like myself the 1980’s.
The masters/experts being on the list 10 years ago, were just not in the spring time of our youth. With a few more grey hairs on our head, and the acks and pains of a cold Michigan Winter. Its just a factor that the average age of a Michigan player, the ones that stay with the MCA or the federation for 5 years is getting much older.
I realize that there are some players that have experienced rating decreases due to declining skills because of their advanced age. But, there are several players that do not fit this category. I followed these players’ games through the magazine back then, and now as editor, I get to work even more closely with their games. I do not see a decline in the quality of their play, just that they are not rated what they used to be.
Michigan has a great history of young scholastic players coming up through the ranks and reaching the top echelon in the state (probably a lot of other areas experience this also). For a period of time, these players are underrated and it creates rating deflation, especially under the previous rating formula.
Michigan has had a number of great players come from the pool of scholastic players. At this time Kahn and Carter are one of the best scholastic players in the state. It could even happen that Carter in time could become the US Womens Champion, as she is now or close to being 15 with a 1700 plus rating with her teacher being WGM Anna Zatonskih.
The state of Michigan can and has a number of strong scholastic players, they come and play in the scholastic events and then some go into the regular tournaments and clean up with the rating points. Building strong scholastic players, then in adulthood they drop out of any chess events with the MCA and the federation. It could be a factor in life, they find having a life as a adult is the reason they withdraw. There has to be a way to spot the strong players and make them stay in the system before they also become a memory.