Elo Rating System - Theory - Practical Issues - Game Activity Versus Protecting One's Rating

Game Activity Versus Protecting One's Rating

In general the Elo system has increased the competitive climate for chess and inspired players for further study and improvement of their game. However, in some cases ratings can discourage game activity for players who wish to "protect their rating".

Examples:

1. Players may choose their events or opponents more carefully where possible.
2. If a player is in a Swiss tournament and loses a couple of games in a row, they may feel the need to abandon the tournament in order to avoid any further rating "damage".
3. Junior players who may have high provisional ratings might play less than they would because of rating concerns.

In these examples, the rating "agenda" can sometimes conflict with the agenda of promoting chess activity and rated games.

Interesting from the perspective of preserving high Elo ratings versus promoting rated game activity is a recent proposal by British Grandmaster John Nunn regarding qualifiers based on Elo rating for a World championship model. Nunn highlights in the section on "Selection of players", that players not only be selected by high Elo ratings, but also their rated game activity. Nunn clearly separates the "activity bonus" from the Elo rating, and only implies using it as a tie-breaking mechanism.

Outside the chess world, concerns over players avoiding competitive play to protect their ratings, often referred to as "sitting on rating", are the main reason Wizards of the Coast has given for abandoning the Elo system for Magic: the Gathering tournaments in favour of a system of their own devising called "Planeswalker Points".