Rating Floors again

Originally posted by shortcircuit
If they can implement the rating floors as you say, then I can see a definite value to them. I was under the impession that the floors would move as the players' rating move (i.e. lways 200 points below their playing level). My only question would be how to set it so the player who hits their alltime high and then goes legimately tumbling off the cart, ...[text shortened]... ed indefinitely to playing over their head because they had a run of good fortune and outcomes.

That's why they typically wait to set the new floor until a rating class is maintained for X games [say, 30].

For example, after years as a 1600 player, player A has a hot streak and rises to 1710 after a string of wins. His rating floor does not move up until he has maintained a rating over 1700 for 30 games. If he goes tumbling back to reality before that time, then the floor never goes up.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
That's why they typically wait to set the new floor until a rating class is maintained for X games [say, 30].

For example, after years as a 1600 player, player A has a hot streak and rises to 1710 after a string of wins. His rating floor does not move up until he has maintained a rating over 1700 for 30 games. If he goes tumbling back to reality before that time, then the floor never goes up.

I would be in favor of this then, under those parameters.

Hiya Swiss
We have argued about this before, so I'll not go back over all the old arguments straight off.

3 issues I see with this, for your comment:
- Rating point Inflation
- administrative burden
- advantages implementing an actual floor compared to a Tournament Entry floor

I'll leave it there for now, as you know my position on all of these.
Cheers,
Gezza

Originally posted by gezza
Hiya Swiss
We have argued about this before, so I'll not go back over all the old arguments straight off.

3 issues I see with this, for your comment:
- Rating point Inflation
- administrative burden
- advantages implementing an actual floor compared to a Tournament Entry floor

I'll leave it there for now, as you know my position on all of these.
Cheers,
Gezza

For the benefit of the viewing audience, my response to the three points:

- Inflation from floors is negligible; and besides, the main point of ratings is to compare relative playing strength.
- Admin burden is negligible; there is no need to even consider floor-removal requests unless the player has been stuck on their floor for some time [and not due to absence].
- TER as implemented now has serious defects; after 100 days, the floor starts rising and people can sandbag all over again. Even if that flaw was fixed, TER does nothing to help with open invites, clan challenges, etc. Even if it were extended to clans, open invites etc. it still unfairly punishes a player who has a 'hot streak' and shoots up to an uncharacteristically high rating; also, it does not address the real problem at hand: the fact that certain players are grossly underrated due to mass-timeout/resignation.

Edit: Also, TER punishes the 2000+ player who goes absent by keeping them out of banded tourneys until they can get their rating back up. Floors allow them to immediately join tournaments against players close to their own strength.

I'd be in favor if this idea. Not sure what would be a good number of games used to establish the rating floor, but in principal it sounds good.

Originally posted by Ichibanov
I'd be in favor if this idea. Not sure what would be a good number of games used to establish the rating floor, but in principal it sounds good.

Your highest rating of 2004 would set a floor of 1804 I would guess, seems ok, and I'd even argue a rating floor of -150.

That would put my floor near 1380 to 1430 based on a highest rating of 1580ish. I could live with either floor, and if I stalled there perhaps they can be evaluated every 6 months.

If they were evaluated by game, someone could make a ton of games to manipulate the floor lower, I feel it should be based on days, not games.

P-

Originally posted by SwissGambit
For the benefit of the viewing audience, my response to the three points:

- Inflation from floors is negligible; and besides, the main point of ratings is to compare relative playing strength.
- Admin burden is negligible; there is no need to even consider floor-removal requests unless the player has been stuck on their floor for some time [an ...[text shortened]... Floors allow them to immediately join tournaments against players close to their own strength.

I've been in these threads before also, and agree with all the points you've made.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Your highest rating of 2004 would set a floor of 1804 I would guess, seems ok, and I'd even argue a rating floor of -150.

That would put my floor near 1380 to 1430 based on a highest rating of 1580ish. I could live with either floor, and if I stalled there perhaps they can be evaluated every 6 months.

If they were evaluated by game, someone could ma ...[text shortened]... ton of games to manipulate the floor lower, I feel it should be based on days, not games.

P-

Just to make things clear, the USCF rounds down to the nearest hundred.

Also, the floor is not set until the rating level is maintained over several games. In other words, Ichibanov would have to stay over 2000 for several games in a row. Once he did, his new floor would be 1800.

In your case, if you have maintained a rating over 1500 over several games in a row, your floor would be set at 1300.

The actual number of games that would constitute 'several in a row' is debatable. I suggest using 30 games, just to make sure that atypical 'flash in the pan' performances do not raise the floor. We should wait to establish or raise a floor until the player shows that they can consistently play at a higher level.

Also, players cannot manipulate their floor lower than it already is. Floors can only go up, not down [this is one reason that it is important not to move the floor up too soon]. The only exception is if a player is stuck on their floor for a long time while active on the site. In that case, they can petition an admin [or game mod] and the floor can be lowered. This is an extremely rare case. In my USCF experience, the only ones I see stuck on their rating floors are seniors who have lost much of their former ability due to aging.

Here's the logic I would use if programming rating floors:

After each rated game is finished, and rated:
1) Grab the player's last 30 ratings (the most recent 30 values from their rating graph), excluding provisionally rated games. If they have not yet played 30 non-provisional games, do nothing [skip remaining steps].
2) Find the lowest rating in the group; round it down to the nearest hundred.
3) Subtract 200 from that value.
4) If result is lower than the current rating floor, do nothing [skip remaining step].
5) If result is higher than the current rating floor, set it as the new rating floor.

The "30" is open to adjustment. Experience should show if needs to go higher, or lower.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Just to make things clear, the USCF rounds down to the nearest hundred.

Also, the floor is not set until the rating level is maintained over several games. In other words, Ichibanov would have to stay over 2000 for several games in a row. Once he did, his new floor would be 1800.

In your case, if you have maintained a rating over 1500 over several ...[text shortened]... on their rating floors are seniors who have lost much of their former ability due to aging.

Very Rusty cleared some of this up for me, we've been talking about the subject along with clan score ideas.

I had a USCF friend who used to play at 1900. He aged, and was stuck at 1700 for a floor for a year or more. He said something about it being evaluated, but I believe he passed on before they had time to check into it.

I wasn't suggesting ratings floors be lowered 'willy nilly'.

I wouldn't mind a floor near 1200 or even 1300. The only way I'll drop that low is either resigning all my games, or a devastating blow to the skull.

P-

Originally posted by SwissGambit
- Inflation from floors is negligible; and besides, the main point of ratings is to compare relative playing strength.

I am very much in favour of rating floors.

That said, isn't this open to abuse?

Imagine player X has a floor of 1800 and starts 300 games with player Y. By letting them all timeout after the minimum required moves, player Y is effectively gaining a much higher rating that what he would gain without a rating floor. This would make "Golden Kings" (User 285560)much more effective.

Originally posted by Palynka
I am very much in favour of rating floors.

That said, isn't this open to abuse?

Imagine player X has a floor of 1800 and starts 300 games with player Y. By letting them all timeout after the minimum required moves, player Y is effectively gaining a much higher rating that what he would gain without a rating floor. This would make "Golden Kings" (User 285560)much more effective.

Even if it did make this sort of rating abuse go faster [debatable - Player X still needs 20 provisional games plus 30 games over 2000 to get his 1800 floor] - this form of abuse is very obvious, and the abuser(s) would just get banned like GoldenKing did.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It's high tiime

Then don't Bogart that joint. 😕

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It's high time RHP adopted rating floors similar to what the US Chess Federation uses.

The idea is this: After X games at a certain rating class, a player's rating cannot fall 200 points below that class.

Example: Player A's rating remains over 1900 for 30 games. This establishes a rating floor of 1700. His rating can no longer fall below 17 ...[text shortened]... that player has been stuck on their rating floor for a long time [and not due to absence!].

Good idea, and rec'd on my part.

The only problem I see is a guy could throw his 30th game, and retain a lower floor.

You know the deal, rule breakers tend to use and abuse the rules and laws to their advantage etc etc.

Even then, at least he could only drop 200 points instead of the 800+ I've seen people drop.