1. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    21 Feb '12 03:20
    This would be a good idea.
  2. SubscriberLEUR
    TEXAS
    STATE OF THE HEART
    Joined
    04 Nov '09
    Moves
    167549
    22 Feb '12 16:43
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    This would be a good idea.
    ...okay:
    1.WOOD
    2.TILE
    3.LINOLEUM

    what the heck are you talkin' 'bout man?
  3. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    22 Feb '12 18:10
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    This would be a good idea.
    Amen, brother.
  4. THORNINYOURSIDE
    Joined
    04 Sep '04
    Moves
    245624
    22 Feb '12 23:39
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    This would be a good idea.
    It would certainly be a way for a lower rated played to artificially boost their rating.

    Player A, currently rated 2023 with ratings floor of 1900 enters six tournaments with a 14 day time out 21 day timebank.

    Player B a lowly 1100 rated player enters same six tournaments.

    Player A, for unknown reason fails, to move for an extended period of time and suffers 40 timeouts, which in normal circumstances would have dropped his rating to 1560 or so, but due to ratings floor he does not drop below 1900.

    The games against player B finally reach the point that a timeout win can be claimed and Player B wins 12 games.

    Under current play he would be faced with beating someone rated initially at 1560, whose rating would drop by say 20 points to 1540, then say 19 points to 1521, etc etc. By the 12th timeout loss the players rating of 1560 would be under 1400 and the points won by Player B would be diminishing with each win taken as the points differential between the players narrowed.

    However, under the ratings floor scenario Player B would have 12 wins against a 1900 rated player and consequently could see a ratings boost in excess of 300 points.

    A better idea is to have the points won/lost determined beforehand, like on gameknot. You know exactly where you stand, you know that even if the players rating plummets that you will win X or lose Y based on the ratings at the time the game started.
  5. Subscribervenda
    Dave
    S.Yorks.England
    Joined
    18 Apr '10
    Moves
    58847
    23 Feb '12 14:46
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    This would be a good idea.
    I think you mean rating flaws.
    I like Adrams idea although it still wouldn't stop the sandbaggers.
  6. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    223256
    23 Feb '12 16:45
    Originally posted by adramforall
    It would certainly be a way for a lower rated played to artificially boost their rating.

    Player A, currently rated 2023 with ratings floor of 1900 enters six tournaments with a 14 day time out 21 day timebank.

    Player B a lowly 1100 rated player enters same six tournaments.

    Player A, for unknown reason fails, to move for an extended period of ...[text shortened]... ting plummets that you will win X or lose Y based on the ratings at the time the game started.
    Well said.

    A Fide master where i live is about 2450 and his floor is 2200.
  7. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    6861
    28 Feb '12 21:36
    Originally posted by adramforall
    A better idea is to have the points won/lost determined beforehand, like on gameknot. You know exactly where you stand, you know that even if the players rating plummets that you will win X or lose Y based on the ratings at the time the game started.
    I agree with this. It's only logical. If you play a game you should know what you're getting yourself in to.

    Richard
Back to Top