all unrated players and anyone who says they don’t know their rating is automatically put in the highest rating section. Thoughts?
Sandbagging implies that you intend to win a large prize that you are not entitled to. I agree with the policy offered by this poster. If unrated players show up at big money tournaments they deserve a baptism by fire. If this policy were in place it might encourage participation in events where the entry fee would not be so steep and the player could get adequate tournament experience.
I see that Mr. Ducharme is not a certified tournament director, so perhaps he doesn’t have a copy of the rules, but I certainly don’t allow people to just make up a rating when they show up. I ALWAYS look it up in the supplement. I suspect that most TDs do.
As far as unrated players go, I think that your suggestion would be absolutely brutal for the vast majority of players the vast majority of the time. Note that USCF already determines provisional ratings based on zero games for all new unrated players. Those can go up to 1300. If USCF assumes that a player has a rating of, say, 963/0, then I don’t think it is fair to arbitrarily decide that the player must play his first tournament in an open section where almost everyone else may be over 2400.
Please note that I think that it is reasonable for unrated players to be restricted to certain classes of a tournament (ideally an unrated section, but those are rare at smaller tournaments) and I think that the policy of a, for example, class prize being for C/D/Unrated is a horrible idea, but I see no reason to let unrated players play in a reasonable section. Besides, this only works for a maximum of six weeks. If someone showed up with a different name twice in three months, I’m going to file an ethics complaint.
Alex Relyea
Interesting comment from someone who has no published USCF rating and has (apparently) never organized or directed a chess tournament.
I think most of the big event organizers have already placed limits on the sections and/or earnings for players without USCF ratings. So, the question is, what does your suggestion do that those events don’t currently do?
His suggestion could end up giving those unrated players unrealistically high ratings (two unrateds in a five-round tournament could each go 0-4 against the masters and draw each other - which may give them a starting rating in class A when they are actually sub-1000 strength).
Most big-money events already have a policy restricting unrateds to the highest section, or providing a separate unrated section with modest prizes, or severely limiting the prize an unrated can win in a lower section. These restrictions, together with a steep entry fee, already discourage “fake” unrateds enough to prevent scenarios like two of them each losing to four masters and drawing each other in the final round giving them class A initial ratings.
I certainly agree that the unfortunately frequent word “D-E-unrated” should be banned from the vocabulary of chess, or more importantly, from consideration by any organizer. Unrateds should, if anything, be lumped with higher classes rather than lower.
Let first-time players cut their teeth in smaller, cheaper events until they have played 20 or so rated games, then go out with the big boys and girls.
Bill Smythe
I suddenly have a mental image of GM’s paired with 1st graders.
I don’t think this is what Bobby had in mind when he talked about crushing his opponent’s ego. 
I’ve met more than a few unrated players that THOUGHT they were pretty good. Playing in the D/E section is usually enough of a baptism by fire. In the higher sections, they wouldn’t even know what they were doing wrong or why they lost!
Sandbagging is a rare event. I guess that’s why we talk about it so much, but let’s keep in mind that it’s rare. Sandbaggers are to be despised, but let’s not ASSUME that an unrated player is a sandbagger. Put the unrateds in a section where they have an outside chance of winning a game or two. (foreign-rated players aren’t UNRATED)
Our main focus in organizing and running chess events should be the extension of the game to more players. We
have more beginners at all ages than I have seen in quite some time. No one like to get “smashed”. Most of the
cash prizes (if they are not trophies) at local events are fairly nominal. For tournaments with larger cash prizes
many of them do limit the sections non-rated players can participate in, already. But, in any event, this should
clearly be an organizers call.
Rob Jones
Alex, I look up their current ratings as well, and then check the FIDE site. Using current ratings, to a point, is better
than zero. To heck with 6 weeks. This is why it is a great idea to advertise and announce at pairings that current
ratings will be used at TD discretion.
Rob Jones
There are players who indeed enter open sections to do just what this poster claim they could do. Either they want unrealistically high ratings or they only want to “give their money to masters” as one person told me a few years ago. Does it really make a difference in this case? Perhaps the player will catch up to their sooner or later unrealistically high floor in strength. One thing is certain, there are adults who will not play because the prospect of being rated 100 is just too apalling.
My comment might be rejected, but I think it makes sense to limit all rated players to only one class above their current rating. I have lost so many OTB rating points in the last few years that my rating is now in the D class instead of the C class I once had. Why should I be allowed to play any higher than one level up, which would put me back in the C class. If I can’t win there enough to break out to the next class, then C is where I belong at best. If either I, or any lower/unrated player signs up for an Open class, they deserve what they get. But I will say that most higher rated players (above Expert) spend a great deal of time preparing for opponents of similar category. While lower rated players can get the thrill of playing (and losing) to a higher rated player, it totally wastes the efforts of higher rated player because they gain absolutely nothing from playing them. Which is why I propose limiting players tournament entry to only one class above their rating.
Everyone should have to earn their right to play in a higher class, not by simply paying an entry fee.
That’s certainly a decent idea, BUT that sort of thing should be the organizer’s decision, not USCF policy.
Bill Smythe
I noticed that New England players generally stayed in their class sections when I played there a “few” years ago. As for wasting a strong player’s time…Open sections are just that, open to anyone with the money. Such strong players need to stick to invitational events or play in closed events that cater to their own kind if they want to experience the “best” use of their time. I agree with ths poster. The organizer organizes, not the regulatory body.
I find it interesting that the original poster has yet to comment on anyone’s response.
Peak Rating tournament.
My peak rating was when I hit 1651 (somewhere around 1986) so it is not shown on MSA. I’m sure I’m not the only person whose peak rating is not in USCF’s computer records.
MSA Peak Rating Tournament
I’m in the same boat, except I think my peak was a bit earlier, probably in 1972. I consider it an incentive.
Well Nolan MSA peak rating shows as 1568 and MikeMurray shows 2037 which is actually where he is currently.
It also is a little tricky finding peak ratings on the MSA. You have to figure out that you can get them from the Game Statistics - Record By Year page.
I don’t know if my highest peak is actually what the MSA shows 1782 but it should be very close because I have no recollection of ever going over 1800. I would think that I would remember that. Currently I am at 1636.
Either way it still leaves me as a B player.
My basic point here is that if everyone played at their highest known rating then sandbagging (defined as deliberately losing rating points) would be pretty much impossible.