10367719: ROBERT V STEPP This player formerly 2150, has been allowed to drop his rating to 1796 as of his last tournament.
This is a good example of why I view “sandbagging” charges with a great deal of skepticism. He hadn’t played for at least eight years (since the MSA only goes back to 1991), and it is quite reasonable to conclude that his playing strength had dropped significantly in the interim. Note also that he played in a couple of “Quick Chess” tournaments (not dual rated), in which there would be absolutely no reason to sandbag, and got a provisional Quick rating in the 1800s. Is there any reason at all to think that his current rating does not represent his real strength?
Who said anything about sandbagging? He was once at least 2150 and his rating is 1796. This number is below his rating floor. Sandbagging does occur. I don’t know if he is sandbagging or not. I haven’t reviewed his play, I played him once a few years ago, and he took 40 minutes on about the third move. Usually though true sandbaggers drop their ratings in a quicker fashion because they have a planned tournament to go to. You would be surprised as to how many people i have met who actually admit to losing games on purpose.
Anyway though, this post is about his rating floor.
I agree that a sandbagging charge needs to be viewed with skepticism. Looking at his tournaments there is a legitimate case to be made that his current rating does NOT represent his real strength. If you look at who he has actually been drawing and beating, then his current rating may actually be 100 to 200 points OVERrated.
His best performance rating is from the HB Global where he beat a provisional B player in round one (who had a 1670 performance), lost 5 rounds, and then finished with 2 draws and a win against other players doing poorly. He still lost 55 rating points and has been on a steady decline since returning to chess after a 14+ year layoff that was interrupted by a single tournament in 1999.
Nolan would have to answer this, but my guess is that the highest supplement rating or post-event rating he has in the computer is 1988 (following the 1999 tournament) and thus a 1700 floor would be appropriate for that rating.
Note that floors are not absolute. They can be lowered by special request. I know of several players in their 60s or 70s who clearly were no longer of master strength, and requested that their floors be lowered. And, I suspect that jwiewel is correct that this player’s results pre-1991 were not included when giving him a floor.
Taken on its own terms, this is really an argument against floors per se. A rating that does not reflect a player’s current playing strength is worse than useless.
The floor we have for him is 1700. I have no record of his having had a 2100 rating, though we do show a 2070 pre-tournament rating for his 1999 event, so he should have a floor of 1800, not 1700.
This is a recently identifed data issue dealing with ratings floors and the transition from the old ratings system. We’re still formulating a resolution to it.
Where i got the 2150 was that 1999 tournament, I played him and the wall chart had him at 2150. That is also the rating that he wrote on his scoresheet as i have his copy. Maybe they were guessing or assigning a temp.