I appreciate all that chess.com has done to make online chess spectacular.  They recently added tournaments with no vacation, which is a great idea, but could lead to this.  Here is my suggestion.

I believe chess.com should have floor ratings like USCF.  For example, what if a high rated player enters a tournament with no vacation and then something comes up in his life and he cannot make a move?  He will surely lose all of his tournament games and certainly lose a bunch of rating points.  So, how about this plan of implementation.  If a player maintains over a certain rating for 100 rated games, his floor should be that certain rating-100 points.  So, if I were to play 100 games and my rating remained above 1400 during all 100 games, my floor should be 1300.  Just a suggestion.  Any feedback?

IDK, if something comes up in your life that you CAN'T make a move in 90+ days (including vacation), maybe your rating is the least of your problems? And if there is something not serious enough that you care about chess, but serious enough that you can't move, either you shouldn't be in no vacation tourneys, or suck it up and move on.

i think that it's a reasonable idea... we shall see how it turns out.

I don't understand rating floors.

Say I'm a 2300 International Master, and I've recently recieved a lobotomy that reduced my playing strength to 800. Why should I remain in the 2000s? My opponents will merit from undeserved increases in rating.

I still don't see the big deal eveyone makes about ratings. If I'm playing in a tournament or any game for that matter, & something in my life comes up to restrict me for playing chess for a few days, and I lose several hundred points, so what? It's not a big deal. I don't care whether my rating is 1000 or 1800, I'm still going play chess the next time & I'm still going to play for a win. Too many people place to much emphasis & worry over ratings. Does it really matter what your rating is? You still have to play your best in each individual game. 

RyanMK: I'm talking about non-vacation tournaments.  If there was a death in the family or something, I don't think it would be fair.

BlackWaive: USCF has floor ratings.  And that situation is truly hypothetical and not frequent.

I'm pretty sure this was implemented after a player dumped hundreds of games to timeouts last year.

Really?

I'm just trying to find the thread where it was followed closely, but I was sure the outcome was the introduction of rating floors.

This is exactly why I'm not entering no-vacation tourneys. You've got 3 days to make to make a move in most cases, and if something pops up, you're G-A-W-N unless you put yourself on vacation...

Yes. See post #101 by jay. The concern is for the timeout winners rather than the timeout loser.

That's the thread I was thinking of -- thanks TadDude.

OK, I didn't see that.  I remember that thread being posted, but didn't read it all the way through.  Thanks

Let's base all the rules on the hypotethical possibility that someone goes through a lobotomy.

Rating floors were initiated in otb chess in order to combat sandbagging. Sandbagging is encouraged by having very high class prizes every 200 points and I think its absurd that some 1750 player will leave a tourney with several thousand dollars while a professional GM goes home with nothing because he didnt finish in the first 3 with 20 GMs and 20 IMs playing in the top section while the 1750 player faced noone stronger than 1799. This is what you get when prizes are based predominately on entry fees.

Well, sandbagging occurs a lot in chess.com tournaments, so wouldn't this be a good remedy as well?

Chess.com has floors I believe.

But that's only for consecutive timeouts.  People can also resign a bunch of games to get into tournaments they otherwise couldn't.

 Take a look at the world open prizes. Also, at the top the "Open Section" is often 2200 and up. Throw in 1 or 2 2700 GMs and the 2200 guy is possibly gonna have to play players 400 and even 500 points higher rated while the class guys only play within their own 200 point group. How is this fair ? It seems the better players are punished for becoming stronger players. If I were just starting out in chess I would see more incentive ( $$$$ ) in keeping my rating artificially low so I could have better chances of winning big cash prizes and thats what many people do today.

NM Reb: This has always been the problem with the funding of chess events and chess in general. I understand what you are saying but without those lower rated entrants you would not have a prize fund at all. Most tourneys I have attended GM's do not have an entry fee and with some of the higher rated GM's they are given appearance fee's and travel for the draw of lower rated players and their entry fees just to see them or have a chance to play them in a simul. (another revenue stream for them that others do not get) Also the prizes are larger for the Open section typically then for the lower rated sections even though there are many more players in proportion.The idea is to draw lower rated players in to the tournament so you all can have those larger prizes right? Have to offer them something. My personal feeling is that I would much rather have a trophy or chess set or some other prize rather then money. The $100.00 or $200.00 bucks I would win as a prize is a pittance compared to my costs incurred by going to an out of state tourney. Food, lodging, travel are all much higher than the winnings. I would much rather have the memento... this is just my opinion however.. most people want the cold hard cash.

Chess events normally need sponsors to have any kind of prize fund or any specialty prizes (brilliancy prize, no losses prize, etc.) The larger events do get sponsors such as USCF for the Nationals and the chess championships. Smaller events get mostly nothing but the entry fee and tiny prizes and typically no IM's or GM's unless they are from the area and just coming in to collect a little prize money for survivals sake.

A wonderful concept sponsor is the new St. Louis Chess Club and Foundation. Beautiful club and a wonderful experiment. We will see if it improves the stature of chess so that others will emulate in other cities. This idea may raise the sponsors necessary to fund high level chess.

Our problem in the U.S. of A. is that our IM's & GM's are not actually out promoting chess to the general public. We have an image problem and the average joe citizen has not even been exposed to chess other than in a rudimentary way. I have always firmly believed that IM's and GM's are chess leaders not just chess players. The reason I play today is because I worked for the publishing house that printed Inside Chess and was lucky enough to meet NM Mike Franett and GM Yasser Seirawan. They showed me the passion there was in chess. I am greatly saddened that NM Franett passed away a few years ago but his passion was chess until the end. My point is, I would never really have gotten involved in chess at all without meeting these two people. Most of us have had influences like this. Our advancement in the U.S. to becoming a chess culture is going to require a new resurgence in grass roots mentorship to young and old alike. I did not get interested in chess until my 30's so age is not an impediment.  This chess leadership will yield those prizes you so yearn for... I most likely will never become a master but I will continue to go to tournaments and help fund your prizes to just play over your games and try to glean some little bit of knowledge and hopefully get a chance to play you or someone like you for the experience.

I have hope for chess in the US of A it will just take time. Soccer was not much of a sport in the 1960's here but now we have pro teams and the grass roots level of soccer is huge in communities. It just takes commitment right?