I’m considering playing the world open this year in the U1600. My highest rating in 2005 was 1715 because I beat 3 high-rated whiz kids who tried silly sacrifices on me and/or blundered. My current rating is 1587 because I’ve been brought down to reality (ie, my real playing strength).
Anyway, it seems the world open has a rule on prize limits for these cases: “if over 100 points above section maximum in any supplement 12/04 or later maximum you can win is $2500.”
I figure this win-to-expense ratio:
win $2500
less 30% tax -$750 (is tax deducted, I thought it was???)
less airfare from Texas -$400
less hotel -$450
less tourney fee -$350
less taxi, misc -$100
leaves me with approx $450 winnings
So, if I managed to win this $2500 would it be seen as sandbagging (like I said, its only a $450 net win)? It seems the world open anticipates this kind of situation and has included this prize limit rule because of it. It seems it’s ok for me to play in this section under the rules, but it bugs me that others might see me as a sandbagger.
I know, I know, I should play for the fun. I do love chess, but I’m not in a situation where I can spend more than $1000 to play in a tournament just for fun. In the U1600 I think I have a good chance to at least break even financially AND have a ton of fun. If I dont break even I’m sure I’ll be close. Realistically I dont think I have a chance in the U1800.
Realistically you probably don’t have a chance for $2,500 in the U1600 either. Don’t go to the tournament based on thinking it will be a profitable experience. Go for fun, and if you happen to win (against REAL sandbaggers), great! Otherwise, you still had the trip. I’ve done that several years at the National Open. The best I’ve ever done was getting a $25 gift certificate at the book store for a plus score, but I’ve enjoyed myself each time.
Only you will REALLY know if you’ve sandbagged. As long as you’ve always tried to play as well as possible, that’s all you should really care about.
I don’t see a 130 point ratings drop as a clear indication of sandbagging. That much of a ratings drop is far from unusual.
I agree that you shouldn’t count too much on winning. There are going to be a lot of players in your section (NOT counting possible sandbaggers) that are just as strong as you are. The odds aren’t on your side.
If you play in a tournament based on a budget, and if that budget includes $2500 in winnings, then your IQ is much lower than your chess rating, whether you are sandbagging or not.
Unless you are underrated by at least 300 points, your odds of winning an under-XXXX section in a big-money class tournament are virtually nil.
In addition, the goal of having fun is at odds with the goal of winning money. You won’t have fun if you’re constantly worrying about the wallchart. It will even affect (for the worse) the way you play. You’ll get tentative and defensive if you start to think you’re in the money. Then you’ll lose and definitely NOT be in the money – OR having fun.
It’s much more fun to play in a higher section. When you win, you feel good. When you lose, you don’t feel too bad. If you play in a lower section, it’s just the opposite. You’ll go home broke AND morose.
The winners of the under 1600 section from last year’s World Open are now around 1800. So therefore I would say anyone being 200 points under-rated has a good shot at winning the section. Definetly not nil.
Geez, is it that bad at these big $ tourneys? I’ve never played at one so I thought I’d give it a try. Is this due to sandbaggers, or severely underrated / up-and-coming players. I checked out last years world open class winners and noticed what appears to be 1 sandbagger (lost a ton of games immediately before, lost over 150 points, then went on this tear). Everyone else seems to be rated below the class maximum.
The prize limit in place now at least prevents sandbaggers from walking away with a ton of $. Theres really nothing that can be done about players who (for example) have a 1425 rating, took 2 years off, hired a coach and got really strong then won the U1600 section. Plus I dont think theres anything wrong with this. Is there?
Ok, i will try the U1600 and hope to at least recoup half my expenses (1/2 of expenses would be approx $600 and winnings are $700 up to 25th place which seems in the ballpark of reality). the IQ remark was not necessary. I just didnt know this went on in these big $ tourneys.
Actually as someone who has traveled around the country to play in big money events, I can empathize. I too look at the prize structure before deciding which events to play in and do exactly the same type of calculation as you do. If I cannot recoup travel expenses should I win the first prize, then it doesn’t make a heck of a lot of sense for me to travel to play…I’ll play locally instead. It’s not that I’m anticipating first prize, it’s just that in the best case scenario, the trip will pay for itself.
I don’t think sandbagging is probably a bit of a misnomer in many of the events I’ve played in. What one has to remember is that the rating supplements are delayed by approximately 1-2 months so that when one plays as a 1587 player, your rating very well could be 1687 in the next supplement. I would venture to say that a majority of the players who decide to give up the money for a huge entry fee feel that they are playing at the top of their game and are climbing up the rating ladder. Also, during these events, many of the players are spending a lot of their free time studying with higher rated players - going over their games, closing holes in their repertoire, etc.
The other thing is that if you are unaccustomed to play straight chess for days on end, the concept of brain drain won’t hit you until you start dreaming about the game and what you could have done. While playing a game at a club once a week or even a few games on a weekend may seem like no big deal, playing 9 games at the top of your game each and every game is taxing to say the least. If you can avoid a seven move mate by game 9, you might find yourself to be doing good.
Small piece of advice…be sure to plan non-chess activities for some of your free time. Even watching a mindless movie will be a welcome relief to the brain. I typically plan on attending chess events in areas where I can tie it to vacation type stuff just so I can be sure to get some free time to give my brain a rest.
Good luck in the event! It’s not just the games that you’ll find to be fun, but also if you play chess on the internet, you’ll be surprised at how many other people there also do and the chance to meet in real life those you play on line is a nice side benefit to attending major events.
I totally agree with this! I like playing big events in places like Reno and vegas. That way I can play poker between rounds and blow off some steam. The poker tables are usually full of chess players, including GMs and IMs, so the table talk is pretty fun.
I don’t think things are as bad as everyone is saying. I won a (very small) prize at the NAO, and my rating has DECLINED since then. I do think I play better at longer time controls, but any person that is fairly rated near the top of the class has a good chance at a prize. If I hadn’t blundered away one game (after being up in material) I might have won a significant prize.
I STILL don’t think you should COUNT ON winning, though. There are a lot of others that will be trying, so the odds are against you just from the numbers.
It is important to realize that these categories are not mutually exclusive. In fact, ALL (successful) sandbaggers are severely underrated, even though not all severely underrated players are sandbaggers. It is the larger group of severely underrated (including but not limited to the sandbaggers) that exist in sufficiently large numbers to thwart any plans you may have of winning your section. It does not matter whether they are sandbaggers or not.
OK. Thanks all for the advice. I will do the U1600 with a new goal of 25th place and recouping 1/2 my expenses. If I still dont manage that I’ll chalk it up to taking a small vacation and having fun.
One more question (I dont have a rule book), I read in another thread that ethically, a player should play in the section they feel is representative of their true playing strength. So, a player rated 1500 (not by deliberately loosing games) takes 2 or 3 years off from playing rated games, but plays with really good players, practices, etc, etc now plays at the 1900 level should not play in the U1600 section eventhough official rating is 1500???
I know theres no way to enforce this, but is it an actual rule in the uscf manual, and players expected to police themselves?
I’m not in this situation, but I guess I bring it up because I dont see anything wrong with this (a player working hard to get better, applying his hard work OTB, and being rewarded by winning a class section).
Yes. Players are SUPPOSED to play in the section of the tournament that is appropriate for their STRENGTH not their RATING. This is part of playing ethically. The main purpose of a rating system is to have fair pairings at tournaments. That’s why a TD can (for example) assign a rating if he feels the official rating is in error. It’s not fair to a bunch of true class C players to have to play against some class A and B strength players for their class prize. A lot of under-rated players will play up a section if they are in this situation – partially to get more experience against better opponents and (I hope) partially to “do the right thing”.
It’s true that there’s no way to enforce this, but it’s the kind of behaviour we should expect and encourage.
Of course it’s also easy to argue the other (not playing up a section) way – maybe the player has improved, but until it’s been tested in an actual tournament, how MUCH he’s improved is just guesswork. This position would be harder to defend if the player HAS played and his rating just isn’t official yet.
Hey, I used to play up a section because I thought that was my playing level even though the rating didn’t always reflect it. But then if you think about that, it counters everything that was discussed above. Basically players in an under 1600 section who are on their way to 1700 are still in the under 1600 section. The question of the day would be does your rating truly reflect your playing strength.
Several years ago, I decided to stay in my section when I was just under 1800 and played in two events being top seed in one and second seed in another. I got crushed at both events. and consequently managed to lose 130 rating points in those two events even though I thought I was well on my way up the ladder. It’s taken me those several years to get the rating points back. It’s very easy to lose to a player 300 points lower than you who has studied up and is coming up the ladder…so goodbye 32 points a game. On the other hand trying to win against someone 300 points higher than you at the 1800 vs. 2100 level is not as easy a feat to accomplish so it’s a lot harder to get the 32 points back.
Now, I’m back at the same level…hovering near 1800. Would I enter an under 1800 section? Hmmm. I don’t know. Play in the under 1800 section and have a strong chance to win a cash prize but also have a strong chance of losing those points that were so hard to get. Or play in the under 2000 section knowing the chances of cash are slimmer but the rating point losses would be minimized. Glad I’m not entering the World Open so I don’t have to make that decision.
That’s fairly typical. There was a 1799 player in an under-1800 section in Chicago several years ago who went 0-4 in the first four rounds, and was given the full-point bye in round 5.
In another event, from 1972, none of the top 20 players in the under-1800 section of the Atlantic Open did well. About half of them dropped out without finishing the tournament.
If you look at the under-1800 section of almost any major tournament, you are likely to find below-par results on the part of almost all of the players near the top of their section.
I don’t think you should choose a section based on ratings OR money. Choose based on FUN. Believe me, it’s a lot more fun to tackle strong players (and maybe get a win or two here and there) than to be the brunt of somebody else’s fun.
One thing I’ve never understood is why players want to protect their rating. I always thought that if a player 500 points below me beats me then I should lose a ton of points. Similarly, if I beat a GM (yeah right) I should gain a ton of points. Point is, my rating should reflect my playing strength. I shouldnt have a super good couple of months where my rating skyrockets, then just sit on it to show all my friends. Also, I shouldnt play in open sections only and lose 1 point per loss vs what I might lose if I play in my own section.
Why do players drop out of tourneys after a loss to a low rated player? Wont ratings always settle around your current playing strength one day or another? Generally an active 1600 player will beat others below him and lose to those above him (yes theres always exceptions). Anyway, it happens all the time. An 1800 loses to a 1400 and drops out. Why?
Just to give up with chess for one game is not that rational. With the 1800 player, one time was a 1400 or lower rated player at one time. The 1800 player had some big upset wins. Number of 1800 players can tell you when they first started they were so and so rating, than beat an 1800 player or an expert. That is the reason the player is now at 1800.
Having someone starting out with chess, with a low rating does not prove anything. Your rating can say you are a 1400 player but play at 1800 or 2000. Just because your opponent has a low rating, or has a much lower rating than yourself – not as simple to win as the ratings point out.
Trust me, if an 1800 player is going to quit tournament chess because of one game. Than the chess player has other issues.
I think players drop out early when they’re having bad days more because they recognize that they’re not playing well, not because they’re protecting their ratings. (In fact, assuming they don’t keep losing to lower rated players, their ratings would probably be affected less if they stayed in the event and racked up a few easy wins.)
Back in the days when I was running a two-day tournament with a plus-score format side-event on Sunday, players who thought they were out of the running in the main event would drop out and register for the side event, hoping to recoup their losses by going 4-0 in the plus score format (and winning $100.)
I think Mike’s right. Blind squirrel syndrome. It’s not that a player loses to a lower rated player, it’s how one loses. If it’s that you just couldn’t see anything coming on the board and felt like a blind squirrel could play better, you figure it’s best to just cut your losses and go do something more productive with the rest of your day than to continue on and know that you’re likely to lose more than you’ll win.
I can relate to that one. Years ago my official rating was 1891, but unoffially I was over 1900. I travelled from New York up to Massachusetts to play in the Joe Sparks Open which had an under 1900 section. I had visions of going 4-0, and winning some decent money. Not World Open type money, but a few hundred dollars.
Round 1 I’m playing the white side of an opening I play as black, and got smashed in 17 moves. That set the tone for a very humbling weekend. Round 2 I have mate in one, I play the wrong check and end out losing. (I actually still show the position to my students to demonstrate what happens when gets over confident and loses focus).
Some players probably would have dropped out at that point and gone home early. I came back Sunday to gut out the final two rounds but my head and heart weren’t in it, and I finished 0-4. Cost me 67 rating points. It would have been more, but at the time the rating floor was a straight 100 points from one’s highest rating so I could no lower then 1845.
I too got the points back eventually (only to lose them agaian and again!), but after that experience I don’t go my class section with the idea that I’m going to kick butt. Especially now with underrated kids lurking around just waiting to pounce on unsuspecting adults.
Round 2 I have mate in one, I play the wrong check and end out losing. (I actually still show the position to my students to demonstrate what happens when gets over confident and loses focus).