I’m thinking about entering the World Open in July but results like those of last year’s Class C winner disturbs me.
Look up Mr. Eddie Briones. Up and coming strong player. Loses every game except 1 draw to qualify for the under 1600 section of the WO and ties for first.
If I were participating and, let’s say, I pointed that out to the TD in the middle of the tournament, could anything be done about it?
I would appreciate your input!
John
This subject was recently well discussed (and in some cases not so well) in this forum link
uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=843
CLick on that and read through it so we don’t get another string of hot air blowing going (:
The only way the USCF has taken care of sandbagging … is the rating floors. It is a tuff call for any director … on the issue of sandbagging. Only a few players can play at their rating class … from one weekend to the next.
If you have a class B player … one weekend they play at a class A rating … next weekend they play at a class C rating. Even in a single game … someone can play very good and very poor … now was it just a bad game or a bad weekend … or was it sandbagging?
Just because someone has a bad tournament … does not prove it was sandbagging? Just because the player is going to a money tournament … still does not prove sandbagging.
Lets look at it the other way around … say someone went to the Chicago open … cost a great deal to play … if the players lost most or all of their games … than gets into the next class down. Than does well in a one day local event with a small entry fee and a small or minor prize. You could say the player went to the Chicago Open to sandbagg their rating to win the class prize of a local one day event.
Most are pointing out sandbagging with the cost of the entry fees and the prize money. If you want to point out the idea someone was sandbagging … the theory you do poor at a local tournament with a small entry fee … so the rating would drop the player into the next class down. So the player can play in a large money tournament in a lower class. The theory still works … if you do poor at a large money tournament and clean up at a local one day event.
I got accused of sandbagging almost 10 years ago. It was in a 4 round tournament, with very short time controls in the first 2 rounds. I was a C class player, and I beat a class A in the first game, and beat an expert in my 2nd game. (The only time in my life I’ve beaten an expert in a rated game. I think that he was rated 2008 or something like that.)
Some of the people at the tournament started to accuse me of being a sandbagger. I tried to protest that I had just played the Atlantic Open the previous month and finished outside of the money; why would I throw games there (with several hundred dollars of class prizes) to win a $50 class C prize here?
Some of the masters at the tournament still insisted on looking at my 2nd round game. I broke it out, and about half-way through the game they all started laughing and inserting comments like, “Did you realize that your bishop was hanging here?” (The “expert” had gotten into massive time trouble early and only had a few minutes for the entire 2nd half of the game), and “Did you notice that he had a forced draw here” 2 moves before I mated him. The lynching committee came to the conclusion that I had done no wrong and put their rope away.
and a $25,000 prize. It was stupid for anyone to accuse you when the most you could win was $50.
There are no universal solutions to sandbagging, and as long as large class prizes continue there will be plenty of incentive for players to find ways around whatever rules we have or put into effect.
BTW, the Board will soon consider a motion to raise the class prize threshhold from $1000 to $2000, as I had expected.
There will also probably be some changes made to match rules, the most significant will probably be to change the rules so that all two-player two-game events have to be classified as matches and to treat any match by a player at his floor as a request to have that floor lowered by 100 points. (All requests for a lowered floor are reviewed by the office.)
Both of these proposed changes are the result of some specific abuses of the match rules.
Rob, the only win I have ever registered against a Master came as a result of a messy middle-game in which my opponent let me advance a passed pawn while he putzed around with my busted queenside and overlooked the fact that I could queen with check, forcing him to trade his queen for my promoted pawn, putting me two pieces up.
Anyone who thought I was sandbagging would have gotten a good chuckle out of that game.
What about two player one game events you would see in an extra-rated section?
Those are not currently being redefined as matches, though TDs will be asked to properly classify any of them that are matches and not ‘extra games’ that are part of a larger event.
If, however, we see signs of ratings abuse involving two-player one-game events, that could change.
I have suggested that it might be appropriate to implement a limit of 75 points on net gains or losses through two-player event/match play in any 90 day period. This would include all two-player one-game sections. This limit would only take into account match play, ignoring non-match play.
That would also be in addition to the 200 point three-year limit, which is rather confusing, since it is worded at least three different ways in various USCF publications.
If a director that wants to get around that. All the director has to do is hold off reporting … say one tournament per-month. So the director would not report the results on the same day … but send them in as a batch. So the director could report all the quick games for the whole month … it could be like a month long swiss.
As with all other behavior that might be interpreted as manipulation of the ratings system, there’s always going to be a way for some to get around the rules.
Well first off, having a USCF rating is just as good as a bucket of warm spit. Second, the idea of the two player two game came about, you posted the idea on this forum. Is it not strange … something you hate so much … came about because you posted the theory on this forum.
So why do you still play in rated tournaments for?
Back to the original subject.
I think that mid-way through the tournament is too late to complain that a player had sandbagged in the past. Even if you could prove your case (something I think would be very hard), there’s no fair way to handle the case after he’s already paid to enter the tournament AND played the first half of his games. What would you do to adjust his “unfairly” defeated opponents scores? Sandbagging is defined in the rule book as an offense that is supposed to be handled by the Ethics committee – they can’t very well do this in the middle of his next tournament can they? Doesn’t he get to defend himself?
The following are some actions that CAN be done:
You might think that #3 is virtually impossible, but I disagree. Players get such a big discount for entering early at the bigger tournaments that there’s a good chance your accused sandbagger will have entered early. Just check the pre-entries for their recent tournaments and if you think one of the players has sandbagged, contact the CCA, td, USCF etc. before the tournament begins. Even at the tournament site you can do something – the last couple of big tournaments I’ve been to had high speed wireless internet available from the hotel room and you could just use a notebook computer to check out your competitors.
You can limit the number of players you have to check by only checking the players in your own section. I’d also recommend concentrating on the higher rated players (if they’re going to manipulate their rating they might as well try for easier pairings within their section).
I’m not saying that any of this is easy – but there are things that CAN and SHOULD be done. If the problem bothers you, then you can be part of the solution.
I have only one piece of advice for anybody who is thinking of entering a big-money class tournament for the purpose of winning a large prize:
DON’T BOTHER.
The only way you are going to win significant money in a big-money class tournament is if you, yourself, are either a sandbagger, or significantly under-rated for some other reason. Players rated 1599 do not win big-money under-1600 sections. Such sections are won by players who, whatever their ratings, are playing at least at 1900 strength (at least temporarily).
If you play in the big ones, do so for the fun, the challenge, and the aura. All of these elements will be increased if you PLAY UP a section – in this example, in the under-1800 instead of under-1600 section.
Bill Smythe
I’ll repeat this: No class player “deserves” a $25,000 prize for their chess playing ability. I agree that you should play for the enjoyment.
However, I strongly disagree about your chance of winning a big prize without being significantly underrated.
I don’t sandbag. I have a long playing history, so I’m pretty sure I’m not significantly underrated. What kept me from winning a big prize in my last major tournament was a simple blunder (when I was ahead in material) against a player that was NOT significantly stronger than I was. (I finished 1.5 points behind 1st, but second or third would have still been a pretty big prize). I met other players that did well and I don’t think any of them were sandbaggers. I don’t believe any of the players that I have EVER lost to in a class tournament were out of my reach in ability. My losses were all my fault – stupid blunders.
If you’re at the top of the class, you just need a good tournament to win a big prize. Most of your games will be against players from the bottom half of the class. All you have to do is win a couple of games against slightly better players and a few more games against slightly worse players – not something that is completely out of reach.
Mike I just started something new at the club and now I’m wondering if I could be unintentionally violating some rule or other. Briefly we are doing the following over 4 Monday nights.
The Rating Rocker Tournament
These will be game 60 USCF rated games. You must be a member of the USCF to play in them. They also will count towards our local Ladder. The main difference with this tournament is that it is not a Swiss. Pairings will be made to prioritize games between players close in rating. For example in round one the pairings will be 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc We will avoid playing the same players during the 4 rounds. We will attempt to keep colors adjusted. The purpose of this tournament isn’t necessarily to have a 1st place finisher. The purpose is to give player 4 strong games to give them a chance to increase their USCF ratings by playing players of similiar strength.
We don’t make pairings until 7:15. There are no money prizes involved. This is basically designed to be like a variable round robin with out the round robin. We avoid the YoYo effect of a Swiss where you play way up then way down etc. This isn’t really match play, but then it isn’t a swiss either. Points don’t affect pairings. Players are paired as close in strength as possible.
Do not see a problem with it … the point is to stay active … keep the club active.
Your pairing system is perfectly legal. In fact, it is mentioned in the rulebook (page 170) as an interesting alternative at the club and local level.
Non-standard pairing methods are not regarded as rating manipulation. What WOULD be so regarded would be, for example, a policy which allows a player to wait until after the game is over before deciding whether that game should be rated or not.
Bill Smythe
I agree with Bill, this is a perfectly valid way of pairing an event.
So is random pairing, for that matter. The ratings system really doesn’t care WHY player A is paired against player B.
Deliberately losing or drawing those games in order to lose rating points is a different issue.