Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 18, 7:09 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
Since I have returned to the chess world after a 25 year absence (a
chessic Rip van Winkle) I have learned about ratings floors instituted
by the USCF. Apparently the idea is that after players spend a bunch of
money to travel and play in lots of tournaments that they should be
rewarded with a false sense of stability even if their current standard
of play is abysmal. IMHO the ratings and the titles have all been
corrupted under the stewardship of the USCF and FIDE.

The idea behind rating floors is rather different. There are players
who "sandbag," that is they value money over Elo rating, and purposely
lose games they would normally win so that their ratings will dip to a
lower class. Their aim is to enter a lower class section in a big-
money tournament such as the New York Open, and win a hefty cash prize
against players actually well below their real strength. The idea
behind the rating floors was to deter sandbagging. A player with, say,
a 1900 floor, would not be allowed to enter a Class C section
(sub-1600) even if he'd lost 100 games in a row by sandbagging.


Thanks for the explanation of the cause of the ratings floors. Given
this, I still maintain that it leads to a corruption of the rating
system. If the primary rationale of rating play is to measure playing
strength for the purposes of tournament pairings, invitations, and the
awarding of titles, then ratings floors, tilt the rating system in a
much different direction and are at cross purposes.

Stepping back a bit, it seems that what caused the ratings floors were
the institution of class prizes. And before that, class prizes were
instituted because it was thought that class players might participate
more and bring their entry fees, and membership dollars if they thought
they had a chance at a prize. So it is about money, not playing
strength. Where can one get an honest game and an honest rating these
days? ICC?

I suspect that to tackle the questions I have in mind would require an
author with expertise in sociology, economics, and chess history. The
most basic question I pose is: Does the professional chess player
produce anything of worthy substance by the harsh standards of American
capitalism?

It is a fundamental question.

Indeed it is. Well, I know a thing or two about chess history, I
work in the banking business, and I have a degree in sociology, but
I'm afraid this is way beyond me. It sounds like you need a
combination of Talcott Parsons, John Kenneth Galbraith, and (take your
pick) H.J.R. Murray, Ken Whyld, David Hooper, Edward Winter, Jeremy
Gaige, D.J. Richards, Andrew Soltis and/or I-don'tknow-who.

Feel free to tackle the subject if you want. It won't be popular with
those that are configured to profit from the current structure. Maybe
we need some star, investigative, chess reporters to rescue US chess
from corruption and fantasy economics...

And again, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.