From reading the “Is sandbagging against the rules?” topic it makes it seem as if the majority of chess players or sandbaggers. Anyone that loses more than two games against lower rated players must be sandbagging etc.
First of all just how many large cash prize tournaments are there in the US every year?
And couldn’t someone dump points just as easily by losing to players near their rating? With the floors in effect it wouldn’t take to many losses against players even 50 points higher than you to hit your floor. In fact I’ve played one individual over the years and 48 games and have loss 36 of them drawing 4 and winning 8. I have a hunch if you removed all those games from my rating I would be over 1800 instead of 1700. Sandbagging? or just the amount of varience built into the rating system?
My point is that it is much harder to gain points than to lose them. Especially when you live in an area that only has a few players rated over 1800 and you are 1700. And it is becomes even harder for that player that is rated 1900 to stay 1900 etc.
So if that 1900 player goes to a big money tournment and wins was he sandbagging?
What about the upandcoming player that is 1590 or so and simply stops playing rated chess until the big tournament gets here so that he doesn’t go over 1600 so that he can play in the C section? Sandbagger?
And maybe it is because I have never played in a big money tournament that I simply don’t see Sandbagging as a problem.
Clearly defined, sandbagging is a person who’s average rated play is at a certain level, then deliberately loses points over the course of a shorter time period, in order to play in a class lower than his expected play, so he could win money.
Loosly defined, anybody that knows he or she can player at a higher class than their stated rating, but refuses to play rated games in order to “cash in” on a big tournament would be a sandbagger… but it would be impossible to say that person was a sandbagger.
The reason the 2nd definition is a bit more accurate (but impossible to prevent), is because there is so many available ways to increase a person’s play level, and plenty of chess programs/engine in which a person can play against in order to better gauge their current playing ability.
-When I say increase a person’s play, I mean by going through books, lessons by a person rated higher, computerized lessons, chess databases, etc.
I don’t agree with you. I think if someone’s been away from rated play for a while and working on their game in whatever way, they get to choose the tournament at which they’ll test their “new” level. Put another way, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to make a leap up to each new level…the first time.
Agreed. “Sandbagging” involves the active losing of points, not holding out from playing to avoid gaining points.
We had a player in a local club who had an old scholastic (low) rating which was established, and came back to play years later. He entered a low section of the World Open and won 5 grand, then sat back and chose his next few events based on their class prizes instead of playing as actively as he might have, solely in order to win more money. He wasn’t a sandbagger in the sense of doing anything unethical, although under the loosest definition - a player who plays much stronger than his published rating and enters to win his current class - he would qualify.
The ethical problem is in actually losing points intentionally, not “failing to gain” them fast enough to keep up with your increasing strength.
I’m still a bit confused why people are ignoring my strict interpretation about sandbagging is losing points, and instead latching on the rather loose definition of refusing to play at a level requisite with a person’s ability.
But it’s NOT “intentionally losing rating points,” it is a case of not playing and winning the points you might.
In the example I posted earlier, a player came back as an adult with a low rating from scholastic days. He had been playing constantly on the internet, and when he came back to the club it was obvious he was far stronger than his last published rating. He entered the lowest section at the World Open and won over $5 grand. Then, knowing his rating would be rising, he chose his tournaments over the next year or so to play in those with the biggest class prizes for his published ratings.
There was nothing illegal, unethical, or impure in his doing that. He was just smart enough to maximize his opportunities as his rating gradually caught up with his playing strength.
Ah. The player is not losing rating points. His rating is going in one direction: up. Therefore, he is not sandbagging. These players are very easy to identify. It’s the people with the up-and-down ratings who present a problem.
Out of curiosity, at what class did he find his true level?
If we do our jobs well as tournament directors and organizers and as the USCF, maybe there will be a lot of stories like this: people who played for years on the internet and who now play OTB.
I do believe Boris and James and I are all on the same page about this.
I too have run across adults who are returning to OTB play after a long absence. In the past those individuals might not being playing up to their old rating. With internet play and computer training, I find most of those adults are under rated. The most dangerous ones are the ones who have an old rating from scholastic play. You think you’re playing a 900, but in reality he’s closer 1300 or more.
