I’m planning to submit the following ADM to amend Chapter 8, Section 5 of the rulebook, which discusses rating floors.
In Chapter 8, The USCF Rating System, replace the first paragraph of section 5 with the following:
5. Rating floor. Each rated player has a rating floor. Every player has a personal absolute floor between 100 and 150. A player with an established rating may have a rating floor higher than the absolute floor. In most cases, floors are calculated by subtracting 200 points from the individual’s highest rating achieved and setting the last two digits to zero. If a player’s highest rating achieved is greater than or equal to 1400 but less than 1500, the individual’s floor is 1200. If the highest rating achieved by a player is below 1400, then the individual’s floor is the same as his or her absolute floor. No floor can be above 2100 or below 100, except that a player who achieves the Original Life Master (OLM) title is given a floor of 2200. The OLM title is earned by playing 300 games, not necessarily consecutive, with a rating of 2200 or higher.
RATIONALE: The current first paragraph of section 5 contains inaccurate information.
The clarification here is that all 300 games must be from when you had an established rating of 2200 or higher. Any games played with a provisional rating of 2200 or higher do not count toward the 300 total.
It says in the rating system document, glicko.net/ratings/rating.system.pdf, that “A player who earns the original Life Master (OLM) title, which occurs when a player keeps an established rating above 2200 for 300 (not necessarily consecutive) rated games, will obtain a rating floor of 2200.”
If the current code hasn’t been checking for established vs provisional, I would recommend making that the rule. Historically, the two incarnations of Clipper code (used from 1991 to 2004(?)) just did a count of the number of games >=2200.
I’m changing the rationale section of the ADM to include the current paragraph which is being replaced.
In Chapter 8, The USCF Rating System, replace the first paragraph of section 5 with the following:
5. Rating floor. Each rated player has a rating floor. Every player has a personal absolute floor between 100 and 150. A player with an established rating may have a rating floor higher than the absolute floor. In most cases, floors are calculated by subtracting 200 points from the individual’s highest rating achieved and setting the last two digits to zero. If a player’s highest rating achieved is greater than or equal to 1400 but less than 1500, the individual’s floor is 1200. If the highest rating achieved by a player is below 1400, then the individual’s floor is the same as his or her absolute floor. No floor can be above 2100 or below 100, except that a player who achieves the Original Life Master (OLM) title is given a floor of 2200. The OLM title is earned by playing 300 games, not necessarily consecutive, with an established rating of 2200 or higher.
RATIONALE: The current first paragraph of section 5 contains inaccurate information. It reads as follows:
5. Rating floor. A player with an established rating has a rating floor. (An unrated player and a provisionally rated player do not have rating floors.) In most cases, floors are calculated by subtracting 200 points from the individual’s highest rating achieved and setting the last two digits to zero. If a player’s highest rating achieved is greater than 1200 but less than 1600, the individual’s floor is 1200. If the highest rating achieved by a player is 1200 or below, then the individual’s floor is 100. No floors above 2400 or below 100 are permitted.
Speaking of floors, Bob, what are your thoughts about adding points for novice players
regardless of outcome until their ratings reach 150?? Whoever came up with this idea,
bravo!! For it has kept many beginners in chess for the vital “few more” tournaments until they can really get their feet wet. Many parents are driven by progress, any kind of progress, some sign. And for them, little Billy going up from 105 to 106 despite a 0 for 4 performance is a wonderful accomplishment. Let us let them bask in their pleasure, for in that pleasure, Billy gets another opportunity to play.
I like it, although I don’t know how many parents would celebrate Billy’s rating going up from 105 to 106 because he went 0 for 4 in a tournament as being a “wonderful accomplishment”. It does reflect the fact that Billy has gained a little more experience despite losing all his games.