How about the USCF keeps track of how many prizes a player has won in a given category and limits the amount that can be won by the player, regardless of his or her rating. Something like:
E = 1 class prize limit
D = 1 class prize limit
C = 2 class prizes limit
B = 3 class prizes limit
A = 4 class prizes limit
Expert/Master = no limit and no code marker.
The code would only list categories at or above the players current rating and would read something like:
E0 / D0= means player can still win an E class prize
** E1 / D1 = player is ineligible for class prizes in those categories; they would be eligible to win top C even if the published rating is below 1400
C0 = can still win 2 C prizes; C1 = Can still win 1 C prize; C2 = Cannot win more C prizes; they would be eligible for top B even if the published rating is below 1600.
B & A same as above but 3 prizes for B and 4 prizes for A. B’s with the limit can compete for top A even if published rating is below 1800; A’s with the limit can compete for top under 2100 or top expert even if the published rating is below 2000.
Expert and higher no limit to under 2100 or under 2300 prizes players can win.
NOTES - Presumably a player winning prizes wouldn’t spend much time in the E and D categories and if he or she continues winning prizes it would represent a quick rise in ratings through C and B. 2 for C and 3 for B should indicate a player who is going to achieve at least an A rating, so there’s no point in allowing him or her to collect more than the given amount of prizes for those categories.
I’ve known A players who never won a Top A, others who won several. If they’ve won 4, even if the rating doesn’t stay over 2000, they should be considered an expert for class prize purposes.
Expert and higher I don’t think sandbaggers should be considered a big problem. There will be masters posing as experts but above 2000 players should be capable of beating them often enough to negate their advantage for winning the under 2100 prize and definitely negate it for the under 2300 prize, where rated masters will be eligible.
I has one horrible-starting US Open where I opened with a loss to a player about 500 points below me and then had a two-pawn-down lost ending (no rooks or queens) in round two against another such player. I refused a draw offer in game two at that point (no justification to the refusal but I was afflicted with hubris) and if I had ended up losing that game (I won) then I guess I would have been a candidate for sandbagging suspicion.
Sometimes suspiciously bad performances are suspicious, but other times they are simply bad.
That’s a lot of data to collect, maintain and monitor. Who’s going to compensate the TDs for all that additional data entry time?
How are organizers/TDs supposed to find out what players in their events are ineligible for certain prizes, ie, Joe Sandbagger shows up during onsite registration.
What do we do if the TDs don’t submit class prize information, or submit incorrect class prize information?
The TD fills out and sends his forms as he does now. I’m not a TD but it would seem to me that somewhere in what he sends the USCF it should say who won what, or am I mistaken?
The USCF keeps track of the data. Upon receiving the tournament information it notes Won First C or whatever on the player’s file and, if this is the first time the player’s won a C prize his code is C1, which means he or she can win another C section prize. If this is the second time he or she has done it the code becomes C2 and, regardless of rating that player is now ineligible for C prizes; but becomes eligible for B prizes.
– If a player wins more class prizes than allowed because the records hadn’t caught up at the time of, say, the 3rd C prize, no action is taken other than the player’s new code being a C2, and ineligible for further C prizes.
I don’t think the TD should have any additional work other than to check the code on the new USCF rating supplement.
This is not correct. The TD does not report prizes unless a player has won a rating restricted prize of at least $2000. In that case, the player receives a rating floor that would prevent him from winning that prize again. (For example, a player rated 1350 who wins a $2500 “top under 1800” prize would receive a rating floor of 1800.)
As pointed out above, the USCF does not have the capacity to do this. But even if it did – are you really proposing that a Class C prize of a small trophy or ~$50 should be treated in the same manner as a $10,000 Class C prize at the World Open? And wouldn’t the effect of this be to discourage people from playing in any but the largest tournaments?
The underlying problem is not the abuse of bloated class prizes; it’s the existence of bloated class prizes. But they’re not going away, so we just have to live with it.
Exactly! I’ve felt that way from the '70s but up till now I thought there was a way to reform the prize system which would in itself discourage sandbagging. After reading all of these informative posts I’ve gradually come to feel, as seems to be the consensus here, that we’re stuck with bloated class prizes and, consequently, sandbaggers. Personally I’d rather see the cash going to create a lot more place prizes in major tournaments with trophies awarded for top category – and the player would also receive cash for his or her place finish.
Anyway, thanks for helping me to understand this situation a little better, refeditor.
wilecoyote. I’m sure a lot of non-TDs like myself understand this situation somewhat better thanks to the explanation you’ve posted. When I made my post I thought about how not all class prizes are equal by any stretch of the imagination, but felt adding something to my suggestion for cash prize size would make the whole thing a real nightmare for the people keeping track and assigning the code. Glad you added that facet and also that the USCF wouldn’t have the resources in the first place to set such a system in place.
Akzidenz, – I meant to comment on your earlier remark about how some people would gravitate toward sandbagging no matter what, as a game within a game. Very interesting point. I remember a friend who had an elaborate system of rotating around NYC’s various chess haunts to dump rating points where no one would notice it. He offered to throw a rated match to me so I’d get the maximum out of it; I said no – rating was never the big thing with me, at least not for it’s own sake. I remember telling him that if he spent as much time and effort on improving his game as he spent sandbagging he might end up being a great player. We had a little laugh over it and he said he’d rather have the money. – Strange view, how much would a good sandbagger make at this in terms of an hourly wage? And consider that when I knew these people there were plenty of jobs, at least in the NY area, so it was as you said, this particular kind of person saw this sleezy activity as the real game.