A person has bottomed out at his rating floor. His true rating performance, throughout a tournament, is 50 points below his floor. Do those who play against him in the tourney get “credit” for winning against his rating floor (1700 actual rating) or actual performance rating (1650- below rating floor)?
Curious
Myself, that has been on his rating floor, my opponents when they won (or a draw), did so against my rating floor.
At this time my rating floor is 1500 (regular and quick). If at my rating floor of 1500, my opponent only get points (win or draw) against a 1500 player. If at my rating floor of 1500, my opponent(s) only will lose points against a 1500 player. If myself, do not play at my level of 1500, my opponent(s) will always get credit or lose credit at 1500 or higher. My opponent(s) will never get credit or lose credit under 1500 against myself.
I think your answer is that a player’s rating, even if at the floor, is the player’s rating used in calculation of changes.
It brings up an interesting point, though. It might be better if ratings were allowed to fluctuate freely without a floor, and still make a record of the floor for section and prize eligibility. This would perhaps generate too much confusion to be worthwhile, hence, probably still better to have a floor.
I think the inflation brought about by floors has been already compensated through other means in the formula. The effect of floors has definitely been discussed extensively before.
Interesting that you should bring up the issue of floors, because earlier today I got an e-mail claiming that in order to stop the decline in club play the USCF should go back to 100 point floors and should change the ratings system so that you never lost points with a plus score and always gained points if you won an event. (I think a minimum of 50 points for the winner was suggested.)
The sender also said the USCF should re-institute the bonus system. (For the record, more bonus points are awarded under the post-2001 ratings formula than before. So far this year about 1 in 5 results earned bonus points, with the average bonus being 30 points.)
It is not clear within the ratings formula where floors should be imposed. According to the chair of the Ratings Committee, it should be at each step, so that someone who is floored at 1800 is always treated as (at least) an 1800 player when computing the ratings of his opponents.
This is significant because the USCF is probably about to make an administrative change so that a class prize floor earned at an event becomes effective AS OF THAT EVENT. (Currently it is effective the day after the event. However, if that is also the most recent rated event for that person the floor doesn’t get into the next rating supplement.)
We will be reviewing the code to make sure it conforms to the above two paragraphs.
What precisely is the difference between “effective AS OF THAT EVENT” and “effective the day after the event”?
The difference is that the player with the class prize floor, if rated below the class prize floor he just earned, will now have that floor as his post-game rating from that event (after the next time the event is re-rated), and all his opponents will be rated based upon that higher rating.
I don’t see how that can do much harm – there can’t be that many cases where it will come up – but it seems to be giving undue weight to the “rating” part of rating floors, which is almost an accidental side effect. I mean, the purpose of prize-based rating floors was not to promote rating inflation.
Here’s the type of situation this is intended to correct:
Player X is rated 1639 and wins $2000 in an Under 1800 section, so his floor is raised to 1800, though his rating after that event is 1765. He does not play in any other events between that event and when the next rating supplement is created.
Under the current procedure, the floor would be in effect the day after the event. That means this player’s pre-event floor for his next event would be 1800.
Unless his rating from that event is moved up to 1800, his next published rating would still be below 1800, so he could still win another big Under 1800 prize.
It would still be possible for someone to win more than one big Under 1800 prize if both events are close to each other and use the same rating supplement, especially if it takes 2-3 weeks for the first event to be reported to the USCF.
I think the Board is also considering raising the class prize floor threshhold to $2000.
As you noted, this is mildly inflationary. However, the Ratings Committee wants the system to be mildly inflationary. You’re also correct that it won’t happen a lot, I think there have been only a handful of cases where it would have applied this year, and in most of those cases the player played another event before the cutoff for the next ratings supplement.
Is anyone taking care of class prize floorings and does it apply to lower prizes within a class?
For example this player, 12937490, won a $1000 prize for finishing the highest Under 1000 rated player at the HB Global in the Under 1400 section.
Does this mean his rating should be floored at 1000 (because it isn’t!)?
Chris
The lowest floor is 1400. It doesn’t seem right to raise someone to 1400 if they win a large under 1000 prize.
Could you not give this person a rating floor of 1000?
Is not the rule not to win the class prize of $1,000 more than twice? If I am the organizer and want to give more than $1,000 for the under 1000 prize, or if the prize fund change to $2,000. Could have someone win the under 1000 prize time and time again. Glad we have someone in Nebraska that has the veto pen over the USCF Policy Board! 
No, that’s not the rule. It may or may not have been the intention behind the rule. Can you document your claim that the Board adopted some policy other than what is currently in effect?
Ok John than the USCF does not have any rule for a cash rating floor. Whoever told me that rule must have been some nut case that had control over Chess Life, ect… I know Larry Evans told me that. It came from AREA 51, ya ya ya ya.
There is a rule setting floors for winners of large cash prizes, with the lowest possible floor at 1400. Find something in writing that disputes this and we will have something to discuss. Larry Evans is not a reliable source source for this sort of information, as he is extremely sloppy about details.
What I think it was, nobody was thinking any organizer would give a prize of more than $1,000. For anyone under the rating floor of 1400.
The point of the cash rating floor was to stop people from sandbagging their ratings. Number of people talk about the rating floor be inflationary for a cash prize. Myself look at the cash rating floor as to stop deflation.
If I was starting out again, and won over $1,000 for the under 1000 prize. Why should I try to play at my true rating? If I always stay under 1000, I have a better chance to win the under 1000 prize again.
It should not be that hard to set a rating floor of 1000. How hard would it be to set a rating floor for just one person? Oh well, if someone can win the under 1000 prize and take home over $1,000. It gives a great reason to keep the rating always under 1000. As the next time with study, have a better chance to win the prize again and again.
If the USCF does not want to correct it, the USCF is supporting players not to play at their best. If there is no cash floors under 1400, the USCF is supporting the ratings to be in deflation.
TDs can assign ratings (28E).
Bill Goichberg assigns ratings to prevent sandbagging.
So, in Doug’s example the player the keeps on winning those huge prizes can be assigned a higher rating by the TD.
Problem solved!?
Tim
So the organizer/director has to solve the problem the USCF itself cannot fix?
If someone wins the under 1200 prize over $1,000, or the under 1000 prize over $1,000, or any class prize under 1400 – the USCF is impatient, incompetent to do any maneuver to limit the member from winning the prize again. If someone wins the under 1400 prize over $1,000 – the USCF has the right to restraint the players privilege to win the prize a second time.
The only reason the USCF has a dualist theory, because they have failed to show true leadership. Just because they lack the will to correct a minor problem with a rating floor. Oh how can we find someone willing to correct the rating program, or are we always going to be faced with incompetent leadership.
Until recently, I don’t think there were enough $1000 or larger Under 1300 (or lower) prizes being offered to justify having class prize floors below 1400.
If the minimum amount for a class prize floor is raised to $2000, that may take care of most of the Under/1300 (etc) prizes and events again.
If not, the Executive Board created class prize floors in the first place, they could certainly authorize class prize floors below 1400. However, at
present, class prize floors only exist in the range 1400-2000.
Floors also exist at 2100 for players who earn a 2300 or higher rating and at 2200 for OLMs. There is also an absolute floor of 100.