The National Scholastics just show the individual and team standings only; I don’t recall ever seeing any wallcharts posted.
Mike: In the thread “Proposals to deal with the pile-up at the 100-point floor”, on April 7, 2008 (post #97444), you said (after presenting a whole bunch of interesting statistics):
That’s where I get that.
Bill Smythe
I said ‘more of a factor’, that’s in my view markedly different than your rephrasing of it as “were discouraged because they lost all their games rather than because their ratings stayed at 100”.
In fact, we don’t KNOW why those players didn’t keep on playing. Perhaps they weren’t ready for tournament chess in the first place?
If you raise the floor 2 points for a draw (and I know its more of a psycological benefit for the player), from a statistical standpoint, how does it compute when the TD is forced to declare a game drawn because both players in the game can’t figure out what they’re doing. I mean, I’ve seen younger scholastic players that get to an engame, and they just randomly move pieces, not even realising that they might be even putting the opponents king in check… and the other player not even realising his king is in check.
I mean, you can’t actually say that either player is playing above the absolute minimum floor of 100. Although if you took away the 100 point floor, the players would easily be below that.
Then they each get their floor raised by two points. Whatever the various purposes of rating floors are, they aren’t used to reflect playing strength. In the case of a 102 floor, I think it’s primarily to make the player feel better about himself, but that’s an issue for the Ratings Committee/delegates.
Alex Relyea
Hi Mike:
Re the 100 pt floor change, does the 25 game limit for getting a floor apply to this change?
Regards, Ernie
No, this is to the 100 point absolute floor that applies to all ratings, including unpublished ones based on less than 4 games.