Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

[Kevin Pacey]

This is a poll to see if respondents would like being a CFC member more if the CFC used a USCF-style rating floor.

For those not familiar with it, such a rating floor works by noting a player's peak rating thus far, say 19xx. Such a player's rating could not then ever fall to below 1700. A further feature of the USCF rating system is that no one can have a rating below 100 USCF.

Here's the entire USCF rating system as it currently stands, for those who are curious:

http://www.glicko.net/ratings/rating.system.pdf

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

The pros of having a USCF-style rating floor IMO would include that many CFC members might be glad that their ratings won't collapse completely after a series of bad tournaments. Good for the ego, good for the CFCs business, potentially. [edit: sandbagging could also be curtailed.]

The cons IMO would include that people might prefer to have their rating reflect their most recent performances, regardless, and other people might feel this way about other players' ratings. Let the chips fall where they may goes this argument. It's also possible that the CFC rating system would slowly inflate in case of a rating floor, even just a little (which may be good for the CFCs business, though, in fact), regardless of any number of players with good/high ratings not renewing their membership and leaving the pool. The Rating Auditor could try to maintain the absolute integrety of the rating system with counter-measures, but a rating floor could complicate his/her job regardless.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

The reponse rate to this poll is about 5% of the views made at this point in time. I'm a bit surprised there's not been more than 8 votes so far.

I thought I'd bump up this thread again for it to possibly catch more attention...

[Paul Leblanc]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

Kevin, thank you for sharing the linked document. I found it interesting reading, particularly the part that gives conversion formulas for CFC to USCF ratings.
I don't have a strong feeling for or against rating floors. You mention all the pros and cons. Some would prefer not to have floors because they are artificial and do not reflect the actual current playing strength. Some would prefer to have them to encourage players to continue playing despite a declining rating (this may be due to age or to being forever consigned to the lower sections populated mostly by kids moving up the rating system).
I've been a little reluctant to introduce more changes to the rating system. As you know, we introduced a new bonus point system and tightened up on the criteria for rating games. The latter measure moved many junior games from Regular to Active rating due to not meeting the criteria for time controls. I have many knife wounds in my back from that battle but we have reached a pretty good equilibrium with fewer under-rated juniors and no inflation or deflation in the system.
I am however, open to suggestions.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

Thanks Paul. I'd like to see how strongly this poll indicates people feel about a rating floor. Suggesting an actual formula change at the moment is at least for now above my ability, if I cared to avoid introducing any inflation. 9 votes in total is hardly enough to draw even a tentative conclusion, but, still, at least at the moment it looks like it can be said there is more positive than negative interest out there.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

well, it's not clear why imposing this condition on the rating system would be desirable. After all, a) for people who care about what they used to be rated at, that is what rating titles are for and b) the concept is inconsistent with the idea of the rating system being a measure of current actual strength. Not much point in pretending an actual 1800 player is 2100 because he once had a rating above 2300. (an example culled at random from the CFC database).

But, for those who like data, here is the distribution of (highest rating- current rating) for all people who have a) played in the last 5 years and b) have an established rating.

Pretty interesting actually. A very large percentage of people are at their peak rating - probably a reflection of the large turnover the CFC has.

And if this rating floor was set to 200 points lower which I think Kevin has in mind, roughly 7% of players would have fictitious numbers as "their rating".

active last 5 years and established ratings	
high-now rtg	#people
=0	1400
1-25	617
26-50 486
75	332
100	288
125	162
150	134
175	82
200	79
225	58
250	45
275	43
300	31
325	17
350	26
375	9
400	 7
425	5
450	4
475	4
500	3
525	4
550	3
575	1
600	0
625	1
650	0
675	0
700	1
total	3842

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

Having 'just' seven percent being immediately affected by a USCF-style rating floor, if implimented at this time, wouldn't on its face value be clearly undesirable. It would mean that the rating system, at least for a while, may not inflate by much even if no counterbalancing measures were taken (i.e. some sort of change to the rating system, on top of adding a rating floor). Plus, that's up to seven percent right off the top who might renew their membership when they otherwise might not have, because of them thinking their rating is too low.

The main reason the USCF went to a rating floor, I seem to recall reading, was as an anti-sandbagging measure, as I alluded to earlier.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

That concept of rating floor is fascinating. Consumerism at its best, in my opinion.

Who cares if your rating goes down a little bit? As long as it's accurate with regard to your peers, who cares?

People are just too much in love with this arbitrary number.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

...
People are just too much in love with this arbitrary number.

I suppose at least people who haven't totally given up on reaching some rating peak/plateau of their dreams may be rather distressed if they ever fall 201 or more points below their current peak rating. It may be a lot of lost ground to make up for, to get back to just that current peak, let alone to the summit/plateau of their dreams.

One Ottawa player I knew of long ago finally reached 2200, and then promptly quit playing chess. I wonder if the 'safety net' of a USCF-style rating floor might've changed things for him. For those who reach 2400, similarly, 2200 may well be a nice rating floor to have, at least psychologically.

Other players I knew of sat on their ratings for a long time before playing again, if their rating had recently gone significantly up or down. They may've wished to prepare for a higher skill level of opposition in case of the former.

[Steve Karpik]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

When my rating goes down it's because I'm playing crappy chess usually because everything else in my life is just taking away to much time and energy. Artificially preserving my rating at some sort of floor doesn't do anything to fix the problem. Seeing my rating plummet is sometimes a good incentive to find more balance in my life.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

One Ottawa player I knew of long ago finally reached 2200, and then promptly quit playing chess. I wonder if the 'safety net' of a USCF-style rating floor might've changed things for him. For those who reach 2400, similarly, 2200 may well be a nice rating floor to have, at least psychologically.

Other players I knew of sat on their ratings for a long time before playing again, if their rating had recently gone significantly up or down. They may've wished to prepare for a higher skill level of opposition in case of the former.

That tells us something else: amateurs could do without ratings. Just a class 'stamp' would be enough (master, expert, class A etc). If people stop playing because their rating reach a certain number, we do have a problem.

The fact that the actual number is arbitratily large and thus has too many significant digits doesn't help either, I guess. When you think of it, we could round that to the nearest 10 and I for one wouldn't see a difference.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

If people stop playing because their rating reach a certain number, we do have a problem.

They stop when they see a drop in rating points.
Of course they are not enough ill with the chess bug. Look at Korchnoi. He must be an inspiration for everybody.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

That tells us something else: amateurs could do without ratings. Just a class 'stamp' would be enough (master, expert, class A etc). If people stop playing because their rating reach a certain number, we do have a problem.

The fact that the actual number is arbitratily large and thus has too many significant digits doesn't help either, I guess. When you think of it, we could round that to the nearest 10 and I for one wouldn't see a difference.

The CFC has a certificate system for NM etc. (even class titles) still in effect, I believe. Perhaps people do not see these as visible/public enough marks of achievement, or else that it doesn't compare as well in everyone else's eyes as current rating.

When you think about it, a rating floor is kind of like a certificate as well. Sort of like 'master points' in Bridge that can never be lost (something that people have occasionally suggested be used for chess, somehow, instead of a rating).

I think it might seem to at least some people that if a player hits their rating floor (should one be adopted), then any future rise in their rating above that floor indicates they at least could be somewhat deserving of that rating above that floor. At least a painfully long comeback from a series of bad tournaments is shortened, if such a player decides to keep renewing their membership because of this safety-net aspect.

Again, don't forget about the anti-sandbagging aspect of a rating floor.

[John Brown]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

Why not just do like some of the internet sites do for new joining members.
Give them a rating to start at 1200. That rating will stay until the required # of games is reached to get an established rating.
Then the CFC can use their calculations after that.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Would you like being a CFC member more if a USCF-style rating floor was used?

After 18 votes it appears there's not much interest overall in having a USCF-style rating floor for the CFC, at least among chesstalk respondents.

If this trend remains, this goes against an idea put forward in the CFC long-term planning committee's final report in 2012, i.e. that a rating floor might help increase the number of CFC members.