Sandbagging

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sandbagging

    Is there a method of preventing sandbagging for CFC chess?

    Perhaps one method might be by stating in the tournament advertisement that players must have played at least 5 CFC games in the past 12 months? And, no UNRs are eligible to win prize money?

    Thanks in advance.

  • #2
    Re: Sandbagging

    Simple solution - no class prizes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Sandbagging

      Hi Neil,


      It's not always so easy to prove someone is sandbagging. Some players' ratings can change immensely over a string of 10-15 tournaments, both up and down the rating scale. It can be sandbagging, but it can also be an honest reason... be it other events in life, illness, or even style of chess.
      Proven sandbaggers should probably get some sort of temporary ban, to be honest, since it violates rules of tournament chess.
      At Hart House, unrated players playing in a class section are not eligible for prizes. Extending that to other 'provisional' players based on X number of games might prove laborious for the organizer to keep tabs on. Let alone explain it to the players involved. I doubt that the CFC would be interested in retaining players in unrated status (with hidden rating) until ... 20 or X number of games have been published.

      The USCF has something interesting where... rating floors are in place. I don't know how the specifics work but I will make up some numbers to illustrate the point. For example... if a player ever goes over 2100 rating, they will have a 2000 floor rating. The floor rating means... no matter how much that player plays and loses in the future, his or her rating can never go below 2000 again, because he/she has been over 2100.
      There are some flaws with this system as players can sell or throw points to lower players while always maintaining their safety net, and there's potential for inflation. It does prevent sandbagging though.

      Apart from that... I suppose organizers can try advertise provisional parameters for eligibility prizes, but not sure how that would work or if it's worth it.
      It's definitely worth checking a player's recent results and if something rings a bell, dig deeper. Again, this can translate into a lot of work. I've done it.


      Alex F.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Sandbagging

        Originally posted by Alex Ferreira View Post
        Hi Neil,


        It's not always so easy to prove someone is sandbagging. Some players' ratings can change immensely over a string of 10-15 tournaments, both up and down the rating scale. It can be sandbagging, but it can also be an honest reason... be it other events in life, illness, or even style of chess.
        Proven sandbaggers should probably get some sort of temporary ban, to be honest, since it violates rules of tournament chess.
        At Hart House, unrated players playing in a class section are not eligible for prizes. Extending that to other 'provisional' players based on X number of games might prove laborious for the organizer to keep tabs on. Let alone explain it to the players involved. I doubt that the CFC would be interested in retaining players in unrated status (with hidden rating) until ... 20 or X number of games have been published.

        The USCF has something interesting where... rating floors are in place. I don't know how the specifics work but I will make up some numbers to illustrate the point. For example... if a player ever goes over 2100 rating, they will have a 2000 floor rating. The floor rating means... no matter how much that player plays and loses in the future, his or her rating can never go below 2000 again, because he/she has been over 2100.
        There are some flaws with this system as players can sell or throw points to lower players while always maintaining their safety net, and there's potential for inflation. It does prevent sandbagging though.

        Apart from that... I suppose organizers can try advertise provisional parameters for eligibility prizes, but not sure how that would work or if it's worth it.
        It's definitely worth checking a player's recent results and if something rings a bell, dig deeper. Again, this can translate into a lot of work. I've done it.


        Alex F.
        Hi Alex:

        Is it possible to say that a person's "Playing Rating for the Tournament" will be his/her highest rating in the last three years prior to the last rating update before the tournament?

        I was thinking that if someone's rating is really honestly falling ( :) ), and they are complaining, then they can be told that eventually, as time passes, this "Playing Rating" will come down to be closer to the players actual current rating strength.

        Bob A

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Sandbagging

          Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
          Hi Alex:

          Is it possible to say that a person's "Playing Rating for the Tournament" will be his/her highest rating in the last three years prior to the last rating update before the tournament?

          I was thinking that if someone's rating is really honestly falling ( :) ), and they are complaining, then they can be told that eventually, as time passes, this "Playing Rating" will come down to be closer to the players actual current rating strength.

          Bob A
          Hi Bob,
          That's definitely an approach worth considering. Thankfully, the CFC has a column for "highest ever rating" that the player has achieved. If the discrepancy between highest and current is high, I will check the player's record. Steady decline, for various reasons, is not abnormal, especially for older players. Having a "recent activity" period, when making such analyzes, would make a lot of sense.
          Alex F.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Sandbagging

            This all sounds like a lot of extra monitoring for an organizer. The idea of 'no class prizes' is an efficient winner method that will squelch any sandbaggers hope of playing.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Sandbagging

              I don't think activity alone will cover it.

              As an example, a sandbagger could play at the RA Club, play in our rated tournaments, lose to shed rating points, and win in the money tournaments.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Sandbagging

                I prefer setting class prizes small. For instance for EOCA events set top U1900 slightly less than 3rd place prize overall.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Sandbagging

                  Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                  Hi Alex:

                  Is it possible to say that a person's "Playing Rating for the Tournament" will be his/her highest rating in the last three years prior to the last rating update before the tournament?

                  I was thinking that if someone's rating is really honestly falling ( :) ), and they are complaining, then they can be told that eventually, as time passes, this "Playing Rating" will come down to be closer to the players actual current rating strength.

                  Bob A
                  This is a great idea, Bob!
                  "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
                  "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
                  "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Sandbagging

                    Originally posted by Gordon Gooding View Post
                    This all sounds like a lot of extra monitoring for an organizer. The idea of 'no class prizes' is an efficient winner method that will squelch any sandbaggers hope of playing.
                    *Unless* there is a type of sandbagger that prefers tournaments where he can play for chintzy little plastic trophies. :)
                    "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
                    "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
                    "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Sandbagging

                      Without names it's too abstract. Somebody needs to track money prize winners in tournaments, then add a rating trend. Any volunteers? LOL Can the CFC produce a graph like FIDE does on their website?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Sandbagging

                        Sounds good to me too!

                        Thx all!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Sandbagging

                          Originally posted by Alex Ferreira View Post
                          Hi Neil,


                          It's not always so easy to prove someone is sandbagging. Some players' ratings can change immensely over a string of 10-15 tournaments, both up and down the rating scale. It can be sandbagging, but it can also be an honest reason... be it other events in life, illness, or even style of chess.
                          Proven sandbaggers should probably get some sort of temporary ban, to be honest, since it violates rules of tournament chess.
                          At Hart House, unrated players playing in a class section are not eligible for prizes. Extending that to other 'provisional' players based on X number of games might prove laborious for the organizer to keep tabs on. Let alone explain it to the players involved. I doubt that the CFC would be interested in retaining players in unrated status (with hidden rating) until ... 20 or X number of games have been published.

                          The USCF has something interesting where... rating floors are in place. I don't know how the specifics work but I will make up some numbers to illustrate the point. For example... if a player ever goes over 2100 rating, they will have a 2000 floor rating. The floor rating means... no matter how much that player plays and loses in the future, his or her rating can never go below 2000 again, because he/she has been over 2100.
                          There are some flaws with this system as players can sell or throw points to lower players while always maintaining their safety net, and there's potential for inflation. It does prevent sandbagging though.

                          Apart from that... I suppose organizers can try advertise provisional parameters for eligibility prizes, but not sure how that would work or if it's worth it.
                          It's definitely worth checking a player's recent results and if something rings a bell, dig deeper. Again, this can translate into a lot of work. I've done it.


                          Alex F.

                          Rating floors are not a very good solution. Players do go down in strength as they age and forcing such players to play with a higher rating and in a higher class than their actual current strength is not a positive thing. As you note, it is also inflationary for the ratings system.

                          As you note, most events do not allow unrated players to win class prizes.

                          In general, I think the problem of sandbagging is overstated - something to be aware of the possibility but not overly concerned with over reacting to that possibility.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Sandbagging

                            It is very easy to look for sandbagging. Just look at a player's last two tournaments if their rating drops before a major tournament then I would consider it sandbagging.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Sandbagging

                              Can't argue with that.well maybe. If a player is trying a new style of play or taking a new spin on studying chess and playing you can expect growing rating pains. If you don't play a lot of tourneys like me it might make me look like a sandbagger. Mind you, I play so few tourneys anyhow I am not a lurking threat, ha ha. I wish I could find more time to play in more tourneys, sigh!
                              Last edited by Gordon Gooding; Thursday, 12th January, 2017, 10:28 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X