I’ve asked if they want to show floating floors several times, nobody ever says yes.
Just noticed for the following player, the old player rating page shows they went from unrated to 986(P4) from their first rated event but the new player rating page shows they went from 1204 to 986 from their first rated event. Where does the 1204 come from?
Also just noticed that the last place finisher in this tournament 2025OregonClassChampionships | US Chess Ratings went down from 106 to 101 from the tournament but if you look at their tournament history, they have one win and have played in three tournaments where they played at least 3 games so shouldn’t their minimum floor be 107?
for unrated players under 26 years old, it seems their birthweeks can be obtained by reverse engineering using the pre-event ratings displayed in their first tournament…
I reported this in my feedback, but have not gotten a reply yet.
The “directorship” list for a player seems to show events in order by position held as the first sort rather than descending chronological order as the first sort. I (12479067) worked the Texas Grades in October as a section chief. When I try to show all directing experience, the response time is very slow and only bring up the next group of tournaments. I gave up before the third show all…
Yeah, response times are an issue in several places, they probably need to build more indexes.
I’ll log the sort order issue on directorships. (A strange wording, IMHO.)
Is this player about 27-28 now? If so, I’m guessing they were exactly 24.08 years old at the time of that tournament and used the age based rating formula.
That data leakage hole has been reported and is a high priority fix.
As noted elsewhere, the beta system was shut down yesterday so people wouldn’t confuse it with the live system.
At some point, we hope to have a testing/sandbox system available on an ongoing basis, but that’s not at the top of anyone’s list right now. (It may be more of a budgeting issue than a technical one.)
So this players minimum floor should be 107 right?
Yeah, that issue with floating floors is being reported.
I don’t know what priority has been assigned to the birthday data leak issue, I’ll ask about that in today’s status update call
did Leago have an estimated date to release a hot fix ? thank you very much
No, I know it’s on the high priority list but so are a bunch of other issues.
AF = min(100 + 4NW + 2ND + NR, 150)
that’s true…
most of our seasoned players would have rating floor of 150, if they never peaked above 1400
There’s a policy issue between do we show the 100 point hard floors (100, 1200, 1300, etc., or do we show the 100-150 point floating floors, then 1200, 1300, etc. So far the policymakers have not said ‘Yes, show the floating floors’.
It’s also worth noting that the floating floors only apply to the OTB regular ratings system.
I thought the floating floor applies to the otb quick and blitz ratings too.
Oops, you’re right. Well, they say when you get old memory is the 2nd thing to go, but I forget what the first thing is.