07 Apr '05 17:20>2 edits
I've only been on RHP a few months. I've already seen a number of threads concerning what happens to our ratings when we lose/draw a game against someone whose rating is artificially low (usually due to a quick string of timeouts). I've already been hit by this a couple of times myself, not to mention watching jira, who had previously been rated over 2000, rip through my group in the beta bander 8x8 1400-1599.
I have a solution to propose. I'm borrowing, and expanding on, a concept that US Chess Federation uses - the "rating floor". They use this so highly skilled players can't intentionally drop their ratings then win money by entering lower sections of tournaments.
In this solution, everyone has their normal rating, but they additionally have a rating floor. The rating floor is calculated to be a fixed number of points lower than the highest rating you've ever achieved. For this discussion I'll use 200 points, as USCF does.
So, for me, my rating today is 1396. But two weeks ago before my recent losing streak I was at my highest rating to date of 1574. Therefore my rating floor is 1374, and it can never go lower. Today ironman31 is at 2459 which I think is his highest ever, so his rating floor is 2259. If the highest jira was ever rated was 2018, then his floor is 1818.
This value is used 2 ways:
1) When you complete a game, your opponents rating used is the *higher* of their rating, and their rating floor. So losing a game against a player who just dropped 1000 points doesn't hurt so much. Beating that same player rewards with points as if you've been a player rated at their rating floor - maybe not quite what you would nornally get, but it still hurts less.
2) Entry in banded tournaments again use the *higher* of their max rating in 30 days, and their rating floor. People who have been rated above 2000 would not be allowed to enter a 1400-1599 tournament.
I can anticipate the objection of "what you I really am far worse than I used to be?" For example, I get brain damage or alzheimer's, making me a worse player. While this would be the exception, we could make the ratings floor reflect the highest rating you've achieved in say, the past 2 years.
What do you think?
--rich
I have a solution to propose. I'm borrowing, and expanding on, a concept that US Chess Federation uses - the "rating floor". They use this so highly skilled players can't intentionally drop their ratings then win money by entering lower sections of tournaments.
In this solution, everyone has their normal rating, but they additionally have a rating floor. The rating floor is calculated to be a fixed number of points lower than the highest rating you've ever achieved. For this discussion I'll use 200 points, as USCF does.
So, for me, my rating today is 1396. But two weeks ago before my recent losing streak I was at my highest rating to date of 1574. Therefore my rating floor is 1374, and it can never go lower. Today ironman31 is at 2459 which I think is his highest ever, so his rating floor is 2259. If the highest jira was ever rated was 2018, then his floor is 1818.
This value is used 2 ways:
1) When you complete a game, your opponents rating used is the *higher* of their rating, and their rating floor. So losing a game against a player who just dropped 1000 points doesn't hurt so much. Beating that same player rewards with points as if you've been a player rated at their rating floor - maybe not quite what you would nornally get, but it still hurts less.
2) Entry in banded tournaments again use the *higher* of their max rating in 30 days, and their rating floor. People who have been rated above 2000 would not be allowed to enter a 1400-1599 tournament.
I can anticipate the objection of "what you I really am far worse than I used to be?" For example, I get brain damage or alzheimer's, making me a worse player. While this would be the exception, we could make the ratings floor reflect the highest rating you've achieved in say, the past 2 years.
What do you think?
--rich