They should up the rating floor for players who have been consistently over 2500. Their floor should be 2300. Anyone over 2600 should have their’s changed to 2400.
0oh, but someone will cry that those floors will cause rating inflation.
There are a few titled players whose ratings have fallen so low over the years that it is almost embarrassing.
I’ve seen GMs with mid-2200s ratings which were indicative of their strength at that time.
One thing to remember about titled players is that the title and experience are still there even when the strength wanes. A GM with a USCF rating of 2250 is somebody who has 2250 results but still has the experience that came from obtaining the GM title.
I’m curious as to the rationale behind the OP’s proposal. Specifically, does Mr. Antonucci have a statistical argument in mind?
it was more of an idea. it would be good for those strong players who might be high rated but never make it to a major international title.
I’ve always wondered if someone could qualify for the U.S. Championships with a ridiculously high USCF rating (say 2700+) and have no FIDE titles/rating and perhaps win it that way.
One could play the Marshall Masters monthly tournament, where time control is G/30 and not FIDE standard rated. Other than that, there’s probably not too many non FIDE-rated tournaments in the US that regularly draw 2400 and 2500+ USCF players.
It would be a lot easier to qualify for the US championship without holding a FIDE title though, just don’t play in any 9 round tournaments and one is guaranteed not to get any norms! Or one could even play in a 9-round tournament and just take a half-point bye in one of the rounds. If 2300 FIDE is reached, don’t pay the FM title fee.
Alternatively, win the US Open.
What if the rated player of 2200 starts performing like a 1700 or 1800? Should they lose rating points to become a B-Class player again?
I’d think there is a bigger reason to have floors for lower level players. Most Open sections, if expecting 2400+ rated players, assume the top prizes will go to someone rated 2400+.
Class sections, you run the risk of someone sandbagging in order try and gain an advantage in winning a class prize. So I don’t really see the OP’s logic that GM’s need a high floor. They already play in the top section (almost always the OPEN section) anyway, so sandbagging is not an issue.
It’s late so I hope I didn’t confuse anybody, but I’m pretty tired right now.
I wish that we could/would do away with the attitude that if a player inevitably succumbs to age, real life pressures, infirmity, etc. such that their rating drops - that this is somehow embarrassing. That person had achievement, worked hard to get it, and deserves at least the same respect as a player who never earned it at all.
+1
Bill Smythe
I agree today but I didn’t always. I kind of “retired” with my 1800 floor, gained by sitting out the last round after I ever so briefly went over the magic 2000 mark. Now I see several friends who for most of their careers have been much better players than me, who continue playing and continue to benefit from the same floor, but whose ratings are now lower than mine. I’m mixing apples and oranges. Perhaps some subtraction per year, whether inactive or floored, might be in order. I would not object at this point. As Tennyson wrote, “That which we are, we are.”
The point to remember is that FIDE titles are lifetime awards, but ratings are measures of current playing strength. Just because someone was once strong enough to get the GM title doesn’t say anything about that person’s current ability. GM Art Bisguier was at one time a US Champion, and one of the best players around. Today at age 85 he is rated 2200, and would probably be lower except that he is floored there. To force him to play at 2400 just because in his youth he was a very strong player doesn’t make sense.