Sandbaggers

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Much has been written about this type of vermin, and much as been done in terms of legislation or rule changes and enforcement in an attempt to eliminate/discourage such activity. Money floors for one. But, the seemingly ever going
conflict between protecting those who are the earnest devoted USCF tournament players, the basically “patzers” at least
for their rating levels, who almost magically achieve mountain top results on a blue moon occasion, and protecting the
rest of our class playing populating from those trying to illicitly worm their way into lower classes than their ability dictates
in an effort to unjustly pilfer prizes. The recent raising of money prize floors to $ 4,000 is an example of these necessarily contradictory policies. Just that now, apparently the recognition was not evident that for the most part, in
the VAST majority of money prize events in this federation, that this amount is FAR more than most single prizes awarded.

Which brings me to the point of the point I hope to make in starting this thread -

Say an unethical players, lets use John Brown for a name, enjoys crashing his 1972 rating at local events so that he
can play at least as an U2000 at big money tournaments, and now, if he wins amounts less than $ 4,000 then wow,
he really does not need to worry about his rating raising above, or even for that matter, approaching 2200 which
it would if he did not sandbag. So say John does crash his rating to 1700 at local low money events. Which lets him
win the "B’ prize at lower events. AS long as it is less than 4K, well, then, he is fully able to do it again.

Unless of course:
A. The TD at these larger money events reviews the playing histories of those registered and assigns appropriate ratings
to prevent this sort of illicit activity –
B. Players like Mr. Brown in the example here, are barred from local events.

Questions – Can we as local affiliates and organizers ban players we suspect of such activity without them having just
recourse through USCF based on our suspicions, no matter how well founded, alone?? I mean intent is a VERY hard thing
to absolutely prove is it not???

Question 2: Is not the major burden of dealing with this issue on the shoulders of the big money chief tournament directors and organizers???

I have zero desire here to start a firestorm, but merely looking for ideas that are acceptable to USCF by-laws and rules
in dealing with this issue. Last, in playing the role of "devil’s advocate’ who is really hurt when a 1900 level player
dumps his rating to his floor local level nominal (at best) prize money events (that is at the local level, for this question,
ignoring the issues raised when players like this participate in big money events)

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Rob Jones
Tournament Director and Organizer

2

Instead of banning players suspected of sandbagging, CCA’s solution is to assign those players minimum ratings which are used at CCA tournaments. See chesstour.com/mr.htm. Most of the players on the minimum rating list aren’t necessarily suspected of sandbagging, but were put on the list because they won large prizes in a class or “under” section. In some cases Bill Goichberg looks at a player’s tournament history to decide whether to assign the player a minimum rating. Other organizers are free to use the CCA minimum rating list at their tournaments.

See rule 28E2 for a list of reasons why a player may be assigned a rating. It has to be for reasonable cause.

3

I’ve moved this topic from US Chess Issues to Running Chess Tournaments.

4

I’m reminded of a self-admitted “ethical sandbagger” whose style was better-suited to slower time controls and would who tank his rating by entering insanity events (12 rounds in 24 hours), avoid byes and go into the events knowing that he would do poorly even though he would be doing his best at a time control he was ill-suited for. That still runs up against 28E2b and possibly 28E2d.