Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

[Bob Armstrong]

For the last 2 ½ years, my rating has been in a slow and steady slide (sigh - getting older?). So currently I stand at 1590 (FIDE – 1581). Now normally, then, I would this year be playing for the U 1600 prize at the Can. Open.

But at this point, I have not yet been able to clarify this. The reason is given on the CYCC/CO website. On the prizes page, this notice appears:

Issues to settle about Prizes:

Anti-sandbagging policy from the 2009 CO, which was also contested in one Open section:
*Each participant can claim only one prize.
If you are more than 200 points below your highest rating, then you will only be eligible for the class prize 200 points below your highest rating. For example, if your highest rating ever was 2250, but you are now rated 1990, you are eligible for the Top <2200 prize, but NOT the Top <2000 prize.
"Highest rating" includes CFC and FIDE ratings. For Americans, "highest rating" includes your USCF, CFC and FIDE ratings.

This affects me.

I have a number of years ago now, had a peak rating of 1911 (in 2001). So, using the 200 point formula above, my prize section would be determined by my new formula rating of 1711. Thus I would be playing for the U 1800 prize, not the U 1600 prize which would be according to my current 1590 rating.

Not that I expect to win a prize, but still it would be nice to know what I'm theoretically playing for - U 1800 or U 1600 prizes.

Has any decision been made re the rule, if any, for the 2013 CO??

Bob A

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

My highest rating is below my current rating. I'm waiting for them to do more inventing so the rating will have more consistency. You'd think the rating auditor would be all over something like that.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

I'd like to know in what branch of mathematics your highest rating could be lower than your current rating... :)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

I'd like to know in what branch of mathematics your highest rating could be lower than your current rating... :)

Rubematics ;)

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

I'd like to know in what branch of mathematics your highest rating could be lower than your current rating... :)

Probably the person who made it up and posted the rating would know. I doubt the accuracy of the rating and could never get a copy of the card and calculations.

In any case, you can look at the rating. Probably they used the same computer program they use to project climate changes. :)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

Probably the person who made it up and posted the rating would know. I doubt the accuracy of the rating and could never get a copy of the card and calculations.

In any case, you can look at the rating. Probably they used the same computer program they use to project climate changes. :)

Do you think you are unique? This one have the largest difference: http://www.chess.ca/players?check_rating_number=141176
Rating 1001
Highest 853
diff= 148

Yours is just 1874 -1781 = 93 ;)

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

Maybe we could start a CFC Rating Anomaly Contest, looking for more of these gems!!

Post them here.

Bob A

(P.S. - I am still seriously hoping for an answer about any CO Anti-sandbagging rule - I do hate somewhat being caught up in that group though).

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

Do you think you are unique? This one have the largest difference:

That there are more outrageous errors doesn't justify the situation. It simply highlights the problem and calls the ratings into question. I've never been able to get an accounting of my rating. It should be quite simple to give me a printout of my events if they want to continue using a rating for me.

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

...The reason is given on the CYCC/CO website. On the prizes page, this notice appears:

Issues to settle about Prizes:

Anti-sandbagging policy from the 2009 CO, which was also contested in one Open section:
*Each participant can claim only one prize.
If you are more than 200 points below your highest rating, then you will only be eligible for the class prize 200 points below your highest rating. For example, if your highest rating ever was 2250, but you are now rated 1990, you are eligible for the Top <2200 prize, but NOT the Top <2000 prize.
"Highest rating" includes CFC and FIDE ratings. For Americans, "highest rating" includes your USCF, CFC and FIDE ratings.
Bob A

I think this anti-sandbagging rule is silly, not taking into account the decline in seniors. Maybe should limit to highest rating in past 2, 3 or 5 years. I would be more concerned about underrated juniors who have higher FQE or CMA rating.

For the Canadian Open I would expect the traditional class divisions for prizes, but for weekenders I think it's better to divide the players into groups by percentage. Distribution of class prizes by ratings is not even, sometimes there are 5 players near the top of the class and a big drop off to the rest. Some players who are near the bottom of the class never have a chance for prizes, unless they drop into a lower section. By percentage there would be open prizes for first (those in the top 33% highest rating), middle 33%, and bottom 33%, adding or subtracting those within 10 rating points. Or Open and bottom 50%, or for a large group divide into 4 "classes" by 25% or 5 classes of 20%. This would keep the number of players for each class prize of the same size. Sandbagging would be more difficult as one wouldn't know which section one was in until all the entries were received.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

That there are more outrageous errors doesn't justify the situation. It simply highlights the problem and calls the ratings into question. I've never been able to get an accounting of my rating. It should be quite simple to give me a printout of my events if they want to continue using a rating for me.

imo, the CFC has no records of very old tournaments. Your current rating was just boosted probably in 2006, and the highest was not updated as you did not play since then.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

Maybe should limit to highest rating in past 2, 3 or 5 year

There should a term how back the highest is tracked for prize purposes. Not everyone quits chess on his highest like Kasparov, there are a lot of Karpovs and Korchnois :)

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

imo, the CFC has no records of very old tournaments. Your current rating was just boosted probably in 2006, and the highest was not updated as you did not play since then.

Gary knows exactly what happened with his rating, and why. He just likes ... well actually I'm not really sure why he keeps bringing it up as if he has no clue what's going on.

The Rating Auditor is not and should not be really concerned with people who have not played in CFC events in 30-ish years. If he plays then he would show up as an anomaly; if he wants to get it fixed he should submit a formal request.

Also you are correct... the CFC did have some old records on paper, but there are a number of years totally lost - they were on floppy disks which were later discarded.

[John Upper]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

I hope people don't think I have all the answers to CO and CYCC questions, even though they all seem to eventually get directed to me one way or another.


Here's a sort-of answer I just gave to an email:

We discussed the possibility that some players would lose rating points "naturally" and that this slow decline in their chess competence should not disqualify them from section prizes.

In fact, a couple of members of the organizing committee are in your position too.

I think we discussed something about taking account of the length of time between the player's peak rating and current rating, but I don't remember if an explicit formula was ever stated.

I'll remind them to deal with this, but it's not my decision. I expect it will be up to the TDs: Danny Goldenberg and Halldor Palsson.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

I admire you could come up with what you call a 30-ish year old rating and present it as correct even though I'd asked for the details at the time to see how it was calculated. What was rated and what might have been wrongly rated. Personally, I think the calculations should be given to me or the rating withdrawn. I have no intention of playing in a CFC rated event. These days chess is on the internet.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Canadian Open - Anti-Sandbagging Rule?

I hope people don't think I have all the answers to CO and CYCC questions, even though they all seem to eventually get directed to me one way or another.

Other day I was going through the USCF forum, and it struck me with one question: what should a TD do if Borislav Ivanov came to Open? Do Canadian TDS have an answer? :)