Tournament Entry Ratings

At present, tournament entry ratings are calculated by the formula (current rating + highest rating)/2.
Would it not make more sense to use an ‘average rating’ as the tournament entry rating?
Calculated over the last 50 games or 100 games or the last six months, or something like that?
A player’s average rating is.. well.. just that ... surely a more accurate measure of playing strength, than using the current method.
As it currently stands, players are often allowed entry into tournaments above their general playing strength, because the highest rating they once achieved may be significantly higher than their general playing strength is now.
Additionally, using an average rating as the tournament entry rating would make it harder for sandbaggers, as resigning a number of games to gain entry to a lower rated tournament would not be so effective anymore.
I see on the profile page it also states “The entry rating will never drop to more than 100 points below your highest rating.”
Never? Really?
Why would this be so?
Time can take its toll on all of us, and there must be players who ten years ago were playing at a significantly higher level than they are now. If their rating has dropped by 500 points, why would their tournament entry rating only drop by 100 points? That doesn’t make sense to me.
A player’s average rating is already calculated on their profile page.
I just feel that using an average rating as a tournament entry rating would be a fairer system for all.

The figure that is used for highest rating is the highest rating in the last year, not the all-time highest rating.

@tommovich said
At present, tournament entry ratings are calculated by the formula (current rating + highest rating)/2.
Would it not make more sense to use an ‘average rating’ as the tournament entry rating?
Calculated over the last 50 games or 100 games or the last six months, or something like that?
A player’s average rating is.. well.. just that ... surely a more accurate measure of ...[text shortened]... ust feel that using an average rating as a tournament entry rating would be a fairer system for all.

Due to medical reasons or other issues people's ratings can change big time! It is impossible to even think everyone's rating is going to be accurate.

-VR

@cawsddyn said
The figure that is used for highest rating is the highest rating in the last year, not the all-time highest rating.

I think it is fairly safe to go by the last 90 days! Then you have to watch closely.

-VR

@cawsddyn said
The figure that is used for highest rating is the highest rating in the last year, not the all-time highest rating.

Ah, ok...
On the profile page, it just says ‘the highest rating’, the fact it’s the highest rating ‘in the last year’ doesn’t seem to be mentioned anywhere.
That does change things somewhat.
Thanks for pointing this out.

I played two players recently with ratings in the 1500s. The average rating for the opponents they had played in the past 90 days was very different. One about 1350 and the other about 1500. It seemed to me that if their ratings had been stopped from going more than 50-100 higher than the average for the opponents they had played it would have been a better measure of their ability.

Right now my rating is higher than my ability. That's just because I've had a run of wins against lower rated players who I happened to be drawn against in tournaments. As a result my average opponent score has been going down. If that had prevented my rating going up it would probably be more realistic.

@petewxyz said
I played two players recently with ratings in the 1500s. The average rating for the opponents they had played in the past 90 days was very different. One about 1350 and the other about 1500. It seemed to me that if their ratings had been stopped from going more than 50-100 higher than the average for the opponents they had played it would have been a better measure of their ...[text shortened]... e has been going down. If that had prevented my rating going up it would probably be more realistic.

It would be practically impossible to have accurate ratings when people are playing so many games at one time! Not to mention you have no way of knowing their health situation, home life issues or if they are receiving help from a 3rd party which is not allowed of course, but still no way of knowing for sure. I wouldn't take the ratings overly serious. I do think however having said that you can judge pretty closely where that person is from their past 90 days.

-VR

Well we could go for a montly update like the FIDE does. This would fix some of the oscillation.

@ponderable said
Well we could go for a montly update like the FIDE does. This would fix some of the oscillation.

Presently that option is not available unless of course you want to look at each person's history individually.

-VR