There was only one witness, one person standing with us who heard the player admit to sandbagging. Unfortunately, I couldn’t remember that chess parent’s name and I guessed the wrong person. Whatever person reported something different either didn’t hear it or wasn’t telling the truth.
This was one of those cases where I know what was said to me, I know what happened, statistics and probablility (rating performance 1100 points below his rating) support it. The player made up a lame excuse for why he played poorly which didn’t account for why he had been playing well at the club since his excuse, and why he was even playing at all. This was a meaningless result at the bottom of the crosstable. The offending player was a friend and perhaps that is why he felt comfortable saying what he did. What he said after the tournament and did during the tournament would have generated a complaint from probably 90% of good TD’s. This was six years ago and I didn’t have a national reputation and doubt I was even known outside the MD/DC/VA area. Mr. Terrie always assumes that it was some sort of egotistical reason why I thought the decision should have been different. Part of the process that is deficient is the ability to question witnesses. That is why a open court is so much better than a closed committee
Reality doesn’t have “versions.” What was said was said.
All this being said, this was a thread about sandbagging, and this event definitely fit into the thread. What does it take for the USCF to support any TD who suspects sandbagging?
Well, first the TD should take action. Filing a complaint and taking the position that “it is a fact that this happened because I said so” does not qualify. That’s not asking for support - that’s passing the buck.
At the risk of overgeneralizing, let me comment that this is a common thread that ties together many cases filed with the Ethics Committee. Someone feels genuinely wronged, knows what has happened because he’s seen it with his own eyes - and files a report. The other party says “it never happened”. The first party, given a chance to elaborate, essentially says “DID TOO!”
Consider how you would rule as a TD if a player calls you to the board and says “he touched his Queen and moved his Knight”. The opponent says “no, I didn’t”. The first player says “DID TOO!”
In my 33+ years of directing, I have only reported 3 sandbaggers to the USCF. The first 2 of them were friends of each other playing in the same tournament. I spoke directly to then ED Gerry Dullea who gave them floors 100 points higher than they otherwise would have been.
The third case was earlier this year. I made the USCF aware by phone on the same day I submitted the tournament for rating. I suggested the possibility of not rating his last 3 games (I thought the 4th result might have been legitimate). I was told that sandbagging would be difficult to prove. The USCF employee looked at the results and submitted his name to CCA. CCA reviewed the results and added him to their minimum rating list. As far as I know, nothing else was done. As CCA runs most of the big prize money tournaments in this part of the country, that was probably enough.
When a 1700s player loses 4 consecutive games to players with an average rating under 1400, and quickly, it gets my attention. I questioned the player at the time of his losing streak and just got some vague answer about not playing well. While I don’t know for certain, perhaps my simple question about his poor results caused him to know I was watching him. He has continued to play at my club and I haven’t seen a recurrence of that kind of performance.
As for submission to the Ethics Committee, I can understand that the committee might not find circumstantial evidence to be convincing enough, especially when the accused denies it.
Ken, I get your point and you’re right, I would need an objective witness in the touch move and you guys needed 100% collaborative witnesses in my case. It is just too bad that a witness reported something that didn’t happen.
Like in Harold’s case below, CCA gave the guy in my tournament a floor, especially since it was related to the World Open. I think I put him at 2000 in my tournaments in the future and he pretty consistently stayed above 2000 after this.
There was something earlier about a player in the 1990s losing against C players and even a young kid rated only 450. I’d think the ethics committee would have to rule the guy is a sandbagger; their 8-0 vote in his favor seems absurd to me.
As I said earlier, in my own case, as a low expert, my winds against masters would usually be cancelled out by losses against 1800s. I was never accused of sandbagging, and I was never a sandbagger, but I’m sure it would have appeared suspicious. In that sort of case, where the ups and downs are within a couple of hundred points of the player’s rating I’d definitely say you can’t force a case for sandbagging.
Anyway, also having said I haven’t played in a tournament since c1991, I’m not writing in terms of current experience, only past experience from when I was a very active tournament player in Manhattan. In those days I knew of several very good sandbaggers but they were generally masters staying as experts or experts staying as A players. I’ve never known of a good sandbagger in the lower rated sections. In fact, I can’t imagine an expert or master successfully pretending to be a C or B player for more than one or two tournaments before becoming blatantly obvious for what he or she is doing.
– Maybe the prize structure should have numerous small prizes for E-D-C-B-A sections with the big prizes being only in the Open sections; with class prizes there being moderate for B and lower and much larger for A & Expert with the rest of the money going to place finishes. No one would bother sandbagging if the class prizes were too small to cheat for.
As far as preventing sandbagging, in rejoining the USCF recently I accidentally became unrated because I used my middle name instead its initial. I got in touch with the USCF myself to change it back to my real ID & rating (which admittedly is 20 years out of touch with reality). So a determined cheater can always play in different locations with different ID#s, and different ratings. It’s only a question of whether it’s worth the effort involved.
If you had returned to Long Island, I would have remembered your name, but probably not your face, and asked you if you were the same player from the 1980’s. If you had been determined to come in with a new ID# but a familiar name, I would have figured it out.
I’ve had a few players come back to chess after a long lapse. Those with new ID# (not attempting to cheat) are often caught and corrected by me before I send in their first result. There are people in the USCF office that can back this up.
I have paper copies of USCF rating supplements going back to 1974. It is very useful to have information that goes back further than MSA does.
Didn’t the entire sandbagging / thrown game issue come up in the qualifiers for the US Championship a few years ago? I recall that the tournament organizer and the AF4C board both wanted to disqualify a certain player. However, the USCF had the final word and the Executive Board declined to act. I heard rumors that the EB was afraid of legal retaliation.
The suspicious game was actually published in Chess Life. It certainly didn’t appear to be a master level game at all… not even close! Moreover, various accounts appeared on the internet from other participants claiming long periods of time when both players were away from the board, then one would return, quickly move, and then would disappear again. Keep in mind that this was a serious last round game with thousands of dollars at stake.
If the Executive Board can’t do anything about a reported case of throwing a game, then it is quite hypocritical for the USCF to expect any organizer to do anything either.
Harold, I’m pretty sure we’d recognize each other. I played a lot in both Nassau and Suffolk counties during the seventies and was a frequent tournament player in Manhattan during the 80s, in addition to being a regular at the Marshall CC. In Central Florida I was a regular at the Orlando CC during the late seventies and I’m looking forward to seeing a lot of old friends.
All good chess players have a great memory. We’re a comparatively small community, so players who go back decades would probably be recognized even if they switched coasts; players travel and move, so sooner or later someone will probably recognize us. I’m glad the established players you’d dealt with who’d had a long absense and started again made the honest mistake of entering their name differently from the original.
Most of the successful sandbaggers I’ve known came from other countries, usually Russia, and were experts or masters who arrived in the U. S. with little money and without good job skills so they started off in the USCF with the intention of competing two or three hundred points below their actual strength. They saw sandbagging and speedgame hustling as a needed income. No doubt sandbagging is a lot different now from what it was when I was last active.
If the Executive Board can’t do anything about a reported case of throwing a game, then it is quite hypocritical for the USCF to expect any organizer to do anything either.
Michael Aigner[/quote]
I think you have that backwards. The TD and the Organizer are on-site and in the best position to develop the needed evidence. The TD is also responsible for certifying the results. If the TD signs off on the ratings report, and only later comes back and “reports” a problem - what do you expect the USCF Office to do?
If you think a player is cheating in your event - PENALIZE him (and then deal with the appeal). If you think you “know” that a player is sandbagging, then give him an assigned rating (in your big money events) and bar him from your inexpensive events. If you do this, then you should have a reasonable expectation that USCF will back you up.
And…if you find it necessary to take local action (expulsion, assigned rating, barring…) take the time to file a contemporaneous report with the Office. Not for them to “follow up on” or “investigate”, but simply as a Memorandum for the Record.
Remember - if you are the Chief TD and sign the rating report, you are certifying that everything done at that event was “by the book”. If you can’t stand by that, then that is the time to start talking to USCF about it. Not after the fact.
Sounds like a workable solution. It would be good to get sandbaggers competing for prizes in their real categories. It isn’t easy to pin down fixed games among good players. In any case, singling out the repeat offenders and taking action against them would, aside from fighting the known cases, also discourage others from following their example.
We have some the stupidest sandbaggers who try to dump games at the Marshall Chess Club. They do it at “Four Rated Games Tonight!” which is organized and directed by Steve Immitt. Steve works at the World Open. Do these guys really think they can sneak one by a director like Steve? It seems every year right before the cut off for what ever list is being used for the World Open, we get these random unrateds or provisionally rated players coming in and losing all their games.
Here is my account of one of those crazy Thursdays.
Even though it was not apparent that my second round opponent was dumping against me, losing to a 100 certainly raised suspicions and right before the cut off he comes back and loses four more games, including one where he was winning and left a rook en prise for several moves.
PPWChess During one of those Marshall Thursday tournaments, a bunch of us playing downstairs, everything quiet except for the ticking clocks when a longtime A player stops his clock and exclaims “Dammit Leslie (Braun), I lose fast to you because I’m so afraid of losing slow!”
There was always something lovable about the Marshall. It’s good to see it hasn’t changed too much over the years.
– I agree, the people you described really are the dumbest variety of sandbaggers.
Yes, the organizer has the right (moral obligation?) to refuse to pay a prize or rate that player’s games. The organizer chose not to take that action, perhaps knowing that the USCF would not back him up. Considering that thousands of dollars were at stake, a legal action against the organizer would not be pretty (even if eventually dismissed).
However, the USCF oversaw who qualified for the US Championship. The USCF designated certain tournaments as qualifiers. Ultimately, the USCF had the final word for who played in its own national championship. In fact, the US Championship organizer (AF4C) recommended barring the player in question. If the USCF was indeed interested in taking a hard line against thrown games and sandbagging, then this was the opportunity to lay down the law.
Frankly, I don’t think any of us can blame a local organizer who probably didn’t even make a profit off the tournament from taking a that moral stand against cheating, thereby risking a lawsuit. And the fact that the USCF didn’t take a stand either merely shows future organizers that they are indeed out on their own. Maybe someone with a strong legal background or deep pockets will some day put their foot down and stop the cheating at big money tournaments, but in this day of $25 million chess lawsuits, I have my doubts.
We live in a sad time when a director/organizer is reluctant to do the right thing because doing so could turn out to be more expensive than pretending he didn’t notice the cheating.
I’ll be working as a TD at the World Open (the biggest money tournament in the US most years) next week and I will be vigilant in trying to identify cheaters. I caught one (playing under a false ID) at the World Open 2 years ago and, as a direct result of my submitting a complaint to the ethics committee, his membership was suspended for 3 years.
If the USCF does receive a complaint about cheating, it needs to be well documented and they send it to the ethics committee. There is also a refundable $25 fee required which is intended to discourage frivolous complaints. My documentation of the case mentioned above was 3 pages long and also included a photo of the accused. I was determined to be very thorough and not to let this player get away with what had the potential to be a $17,000 prize fraud.
So, what is the opponent of the player that sandbags a game responsibility? I been sandbagged on at least twice and in the last rounds when I am in the bottom quarter of the score groups. I did not realize one player was sandbagging, but did the other.
[/quote]
Twice in recent events is hardly worth mentioning. There were tournaments when I had different sandbaggers go against me twice in the same event. The only personal solution is to become a stronger player. Eventually the sandbaggers didn’t bother me except for the fact I’d know the guy was really an expert or marginal master instead of the 1800s rating.
Perhaps this is too simple a solution but I’ll propose it anyway:
Big money tournaments would have substantial cash prizes for place finish in the Open section, with trophies and small cash prizes for class prizes. Increase the number of place prizes so even A and B players will finish among those winning cash. Category sections would have trophies and small cash prizes. – Hustlers and sandbaggers aren’t interested in trophies (except to sell them). This sort of prize system would make sandbagging a moot point. Otherwise I don’t think there’s any enforcement system that will break it – there are always too many sandbaggers who know how to conceal their tracks well enough to avoid punishment.
Back before I became a TD, I saw a player at a board near me “try” and fail to mate with two promoted bishops. I don’t think I could have said anything, as I was neither the TD or the opponent, but it was pretty obvious that he was trying not to win that game.
Lame sarcasms aside, the two issues aren’t similar at all.
C-B-and A players are amateurs. If the tournaments offer big prizes for the amateurs then sandbaggers have to be accepted as a fact of life. Ethics committees aren’t going to find solutions; the thieves will always be at least one step ahead of them.
If sponsors have to keep awarding amateur players professional prize money then they have to accept at least some sandbagging as a fact of life.
I’d charge a lot less entrance fee in the amateur sections, and tournaments, and offer a lot less in prize money but with more trophies and plaques. What’s wrong with C - B - A players going home with a big trophy and perhaps double their entry fee for winning their category? Meanwhile the professional cash prizes would be for place finish in the open section. Amateur players in the open would be competing for cash place prizes (same as the masters etc) and trophies for top in their category.
There would be no point in being a sandbagger and the problem would be solved.
The issues are quite similar, you are proposing changes that will impact thousands of honest players in order to catch a handful of cheaters.
Moreover, the USCF is not and should not be in the business of telling organizers what kinds of prize funds they can offer, or to whom. Its a free-market system, people vote with their entry fees for the types of events they want to play in.
