It’s someone who purposely does poorly in tournaments in order to lower his rating to qualify for a lower class. Or, who knows he will be rated higher and takes advantage of the lag of the rating supplements to play a lower class than one to which he is entitled.
If someone like Todd comes along, who apparently has extensive Internet chess playing experience…nothing wrong with that.
The Internet has and will give many an opportunity to improve without playing in OTB tournaments - and that fact can’t be stopped.
I’ve always considered the lag between someone’s current unofficial rating and their published rating as a bonus for improving players.
I remember a young player in Nebraska who went from being around a 1300 player to near-expert strength in a matter of weeks, a chess revelation I have seen happen in a few young players but unfortunately have never experienced personally.
There was even a time when the lag between being unrated and having your first published rating was considered a plus, though the prize structure of most events now works against unrated players.
Good. For a moment there I thought it might be somehow considered manipulating the system because I was give players more opportunity to play games against players of similiar strength.
Now what if we were to add money prizes to something like this? For example a first place prize that would be divided equally amongst the top scorers. Would that be an issue?
I know that this debate about sandbagging and underrated players, etc arguement has gone on for a while, and I have done a lot of serious thinking. Mike Nolan has done so much to improve the ratings system and that should be greatly appreciated by everyone.
However, no policy/rule can ever stop the abuse (intentional or unintentional) of the rating system. All rating systems are inherently flawed. Nothing can be done about it. Until someone invents a machine that scans your brain and assigns you a rating right before the tournament, ratings are inaccurate by nature.
Some examples of illegal abuse: sandbagging, trying to manipulate ratings through “match play”.
legal: Long break from OTB chess, while steadily improving through internet play or unrated games (Todd).
I also have a close friend who received a 950 rating maybe 4 years ago. Over the next three years, he had improved to the 1500ish level playing on the internet. About a year ago, he went to play in several local quads and with his 950 rating was playing against players rated 900-1100. He played in three quads and went 3-0 each time, picking up a $50 prize each time. (He apparently didn’t do this on purpose for the money, because it took a lot of convincing on my part to make him pay the $15 entry fee to play.) His post rating after those events landed him in about the 1300 area. He is now playing at the 1700-1800 level, but is still rated 1300. If he wanted to, he could play in a major money event U1400 section, and probably win a lot of dough with his 1800 skills.
In conclusion, don’t argue ratings anymore because there is an inherent flaw in the concept of ratings.
My question would be: “Why should I participate if my rating is 300 points below the top rated players, AND I’m not given the chance to play the top rates?”
I say this a person that has contributed significantly to Jude Acer’s income over the years. I just admire to see the way I’m beaten
Seriously, those of us on the bottom can feel a little dismissed unless some extra care is taken.
I probably shouldn’t, but I’m going to nitpick a little. I’ll ask for forgiveness in advance if I make a mistake because I don’t have the rule book in front of me…
According to the rule book section on ethics (something I should have looked at more closely during the last thread on sandbagging), you’re not even supposed to play in a section of a tournament if YOU KNOW that your strength is greater than that section. Even if your greater strength comes from consistent improvement rather than sandbagging, it’s still wrong to INTENTIONALLY play in a section that’s below your strength. Of course there’s no way to enforce such a rule – it’s up to each player to conduct themselves properly. If you know that your strength is significantly higher than your rating, then you should let the TD know and give him an opportunity to assign a higher rating to you for pairing purposes.
Of course a rapidly improving younger player won’t KNOW how strong they really are – that’s to be expected. I’d still encourage such a player to play up a class for their own benefit (better experience) but it’s ethical to play in their assigned rating class unless they’re SURE that they’re better than that class. A player that’s played internet chess for a couple of years and watched his on-line performance improve significantly over a period of time may be a different matter. With a long history of improved play, such a player should be better able to judge their own ability and should play in the appropriate class. (and I’d also hold a high school or college student to a higher standard than the 5th grader that recently beat me – older players should be better judges of their own ability)
The rating system wasn’t designed to divide non-cooperative players into ratings classes to compete for huge class prizes. It’s not a flaw in the rating system if some players decide to ignore the code of ethics to take advantage of class prizes that are out of hand. I don’t think any rating system can keep players from trying to cheat, and the rating system shouldn’t be blamed when people do cheat.
A few years ago … the USCF came up with the idea about being active. The point is this … if you have a small group of people … just play. If you only have the games unrated … you would not care if you made a blunder … your opponent would not care if he/she made a blunder. Unrated games you are not going to play at your best … in fact you will be breaking more rules if you only play unrated games than rated games.
The goal is to have fun … the other goal is to get the players with established USCF ratings … for both classical and quick. Does it matter if the tournament only has a low number of three players … does it matter you play the same person more than once … no it does not matter.
The rating system does not care. But if you only have a few players … if you bring up a prize with just a few friends … it would start to look like a bet or gamble.
You have pointed out one of the reasons why the rating system is not worth a bucket of spit.
The major problem with the rating … you have to look at the time control. Sure, your classical rating starts at G/30 or slower. Some players will play like a class D player at G/30, a class C player at G/60, a class B player at G/90. There is a reason why a lot of players will never go to a G/60 event. At G/60, have seen major upsets … of 600 or 800 points.
Now if you want to impress your friends, as a low class C player … with the black pieces … to get a draw with a master. Your friends will be more impressed if you got the draw at a G/150 than a G/60.
Someone likes to pick up the data … that a class C player has a chance to draw a master X percent of the time. Or the data of a Class B player should win X percent of the time to a class D player. A lot of that data is from the 1970’s with longer time controls.
Even established ratings are not sure … as a class B player only plays as a class B at G/90 or slower. But that same class B player will play as a class C player at G/30.
Our family would participate for the experience . . . but we also have a 10 year old rated mid 1400’s whose most recent performance was more in the 18-1900 range. His tournament just prior to this one was only a 1500 rating performance. I do not think there is enough evidence to violate anything ethically by remaining in the U1600 class. With his recent performance I thought that he might have a shot at a class prize though. But the tourneys are expensive and I would like to think that they are generally speaking— fair to all competitors.
Has sandbagging become so prominent that these big entry fee, big prize fund tourneys are (at no fault of the organizer) unfair? Or do all these posts make it appear like a far greater problem than it is?
It is not necessarily true that players get weaker as the time controls get faster, at least not relative to other players. (All ratings are relative to the ratings of other players.)
When I have talked to him about it, Bill Goichberg has indicated that he feels that the majority of big class prizes are being won by players who are legitimately higher rated than their published rating, mostly because of improvement that has not yet been reflected in their rating.
The sandbagging cases, while usually dramatic, are in the minority.
Foreign players are a somewhat separate issue, because there often just isn’t any way to assign them an accurate rating. I think this is largely being dealt with on an administrative basis, by forcing foreign players to play up or capping the amount they can win.
If your family is truly participating for the experience, then you have little reason to be concerned about fairness. In fact, if your son performs well, he should welcome the chance to be paired against an under-rated player or two.
A single performance in the 1800 range is hardly conclusive, and there would certainly be no ethical problem if he plays in the under-1600 section. But wouldn’t it be far better, if experience is REALLY what your family is after, if he played up a section, in the under-1800? It seems your son may be on the verge of a quantum leap in his playing strength, as so often happens with young C players.
Ask yourself, honestly, what is the REAL reason your family is playing? Is it truly for the experience, fun, aura, challenge, etc? Or are you subconsciously angling for those big prizes? In the latter case, keep in mind that 95% of class players who play for money come away empty-handed, and are left with a yechy taste in their mouths – not exactly the kind of “experience” they were looking for.
If the excitement means that much to you, take your $250 entry fee, go to Vegas and place it on ‘red’ or ‘black’ at the roulette wheel. You’ve got a much better chance of winning.
While I don’t think you should EXPECT to win a large prize, it is fun to think about it. If you’re travelling a long distance to go to a major tournament, the EF is the smallest part of your expenses. I’m not crazy about large class prizes, but since the EF is only a small part of expenses, it might as well be large enough to make the prizes big.
Just don’t EXPECT to win – even if you’re under-rated the odds will be against you.
If you’re not reasonably certain that his strength is greater than the class, then there’s no ethical reason not to play in the class. I agree, though, that it’ll be better experience to play in a higher class. I’d only recommend going up one class – if you lose every game that’s not much of an experience either (and you don’t even get a big cash prize as consolation for playing in a mis-matched class ). Also keep in mind that if he’s rated in the bottom half of the class (OR playing up a class) that if he does OK then most of his games will be against the top half of the class – that may influence your decision.
On the fairness issue, I’ve never felt unfairly treated (because of perceived sandbagging), but YMMV.
What’s with that reply? Are you trying to discourage me from playing in tournaments? I never said that the money was the primary reason I played.
I’ve now seen it all. Folks are judging others based on their reasons for playing. Amazing. I would think anyone associated with the USCF would try to encourage folks to play in tournaments.
Certainly people should be encouraged to play in tournaments. But I’d rather see a player enter five tournaments with $50 entry fees than one at $250. If you want to argue that people will do both – well, that’s fine, but the evidence is against it.
I’m sure you would. However, some of us work most weekends so taking off for a chess tournament means lost wages. So I might as well make it a well deserved vacation and hope for the best.
That’s a perfectly reasonable position. I disagree with it (since the odds are terrible), but there is no reason why you should care. However, if “one big tournament” results in fewer tournaments overall (which I think is the case), it is arguably bad for chess.
I vaguely remember the time before the tournaments with big class prizes. The USCF was much smaller then (I’m NOT saying that’s cause and effect). So what if the 1800 people that play in the World Open (if there are that many) play in slightly fewer other tournaments. That’s not a very large portion of the USCF and I don’t see it having that big an impact. I think the large tournaments encourage some people to play (warm-up tournaments to get ready, for example).
Gee if there were REALLY a lot of sandbagging going on, wouldn’t players play one or two tournaments to sandbag before the big tournaments?
). Also keep in mind that if he’s rated in the bottom half of the class (OR playing up a class) that if he does OK then most of his games will be against the top half of the class – that may influence your decision.