28 Jul 06
1 edit
Once a player has maintained a certain level of play for 6 months or so, that player should have a floor where he/she can't drop below it. For example, a class A player would doesn't drop below 1800 for 6 months should not be able to drop below 1800.
What we see at RHP is a situation where someone gets ill or is timed out in a lot of games. The result is that you could be playing someone your own rating and be winning 3 out of 4 games, but you can drop 27 points from the match if his/her rating drops over 300 points.
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by arrakisThat's a ridiculous idea. If a player manages to stay above an 1800 rating by playing only 1600 people and at the best his abilities allow, and then has a slump in abilities, he does not deserve to remain at 1800.
Once a player has maintained a certain level of play for 6 months or so, that player should have a floor where he/she can't drop below it. For example, a class A player would doesn't drop below 1800 for 6 months should not be able to drop below 1800.
What we see at RHP is a situation where someone gets ill or is timed out in a lot of games. The result is ...[text shortened]... of 4 games, but you can drop 27 points from the match if his/her rating drops over 300 points.
29 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanThat is their problem for smurfing up to 1800.
That's a ridiculous idea. If a player manages to stay above an 1800 rating by playing only 1600 people and at the best his abilities allow, and then has a slump in abilities, he does not deserve to remain at 1800.
Does anyone know how USCF does it? I had a friend who I met because he ran a chess club back in 1995 or so. He was a good 72 or so, and not so healthy. He had a rating floor of about 1700 and had been there for some time.
I'm not sure, but I think if he continued to flat out at 1700 for a number of games they drop it back another couple hundred or so... not sure about that, but if RHP did:
It would keep high ranked players from vanishing and coming back with super low rating. They also wouldn't be able to come back and join a low rated tourney as I've seen some users do.
If a player comes back, his rating was locked more where it belongs rather than being timed out in all games to 1000 rating points. It would make it easier on anyone coming back, and anyone they are playing. No more tearing ratings apart when one of these users returns.
People playing a 1900 player when they vanish will get a win against a more reasonable number like 1750 rather than having a won game against a 1900 player and only getting a point because they bottomed out when they left.
In the rare case a player keeps playing and drops out, after a certain number of games or moves they 'earn' a new rating floor.
I think rating floors are a good idea if done right.
P-