Blatant Sandbagging - Delayed Action Cannot Be Rectified

I entered a 1000 and under daily tournament about 2 months ago.  Everyone that got into that tournament had a rating below 1000.  All seemed normal until the end of round 2 when one player suddenly had a rating over 1600!  Yes, your rating will go up during a tournament as you win, but even if you win every game in the first 2 rounds it is not likely to exceed +200 points and certainly does not result in a 700 point gain.

I checked this player's history and it is quite obvious that they lied about their initial rating around 950 when they joined chess.com the DAY BEFORE the tournament started.  Within the next 20 days this player won 57 straight games across both tournaments and individual play reaching a rating over 1600.   Hmmm, not a coincidence.

Meanwhile, they are reeking havoc in my tournament (and possibly others) knocking out valid players from advancing to the next round.  So far that player has 51 straight wins in my tournament up into round 3 and will most likely win the tournament in the end.

Question is....how fast can chess.com shut down this type of behavior in a quick and timely manner before more damage is done?  You simply cannot redo a tournament after each round ends.  I have reported this 4 different ways in the past week and nothing seems to be happening.

I have suggested that tournaments have the option to set a "poison pill" that limits how high a player can go over the maximum allowed rating causing an automatic "no advance" into the next round allowing players who finished just below them to advance.   No fair-play team review would be needed in such a case and the result is immediate.

Chosing a level at account start that may be incorrect for a player's actual strength is not sandbagging. When tournaments are created, there's an option to require a certain minimum number of games to minimize the chances of a new underrated player from joining.

     Someone who hasn't play rated games probably has only a vague idea of their probable elo strength, even if they've played casually among friends for years. If they've won more often than they've lost and chess.com says 800 is average for new players that don't choose a rating, they may think that 950 is reasonable. 

     If the real person behind the avatar has a real otb FIDE rating of 2000 and there is serious $$$ in prizes at stake, that's another matter.

While signing on with an incorrect rating is not "technically" the definition of sandbagging the result is the same...manipulation of a person's rating in order to gain an unfair advantage.  Call it what it is... unfair play.  If chess.com let's this slide just because it is not what they define as sandbagging, then there is a bigger issue here which leaves an open door to this kind of bad behavior.

And let's not give this person the benefit of the doubt in picking the wrong rating at sign-up.  A further dive into this player's history reveals some other data:

On the day this player signed up he (don't call me sexist, let's just call the player a male to make less typing here)....he played a total of 55 Bullet games the day he signed up, losing only 7 of them and ending up with a rating in Bullet of 1519.  While there is no direct correlation between Bullet ratings and Daily ratings it is quite clear that he knew how to play chess very well.

Which brings us to the next point in his history...his first Daily game which occurred on the day the tournament began.  He won and his rating ended up at 945.  Based on chess.com using the Glicko system his rating for the first few games changes more drastically than latter games.  So, the conclusion must be that when he signed up he chose "Beginner" from the choices of player strength and started with a rating of 800.   Who really believes this person thought he was a beginner?

Next point, his second Daily game also occurred the day the tournament began, but with his win of that game his rating jumped to 1003 which would have excluded from that tournament.  Apparently the person who set up the tournament did not include the 5-game pre-play rule to qualify.  Which begs the question.... why isn't the 5-game pre-play required in all tournaments?  After 5 games this player's Daily rating was 1146 and at least one of the tournaments he unfairly entered would not happen.  Ironically enough the person who organized this tournament voluntarily closed their chess.com account about 20 days after this tournament began.  Maybe not so ironic as that was about the time that the gross mis-rating of this rogue player became evident.  I can imagine the private messages they might have been getting.

BTW, there is a dubious rule on chess.com that even when the 5-game rule is imposed it does not apply to a player who signed up as a Premium user.  What a loophole.  That exception should be removed.  You shouldn't be able to buy your way in with an advantage.

Bottom line, IMHO this rogue player either.... purposefully under reported his rating and is willing to take full advantage of that, or.... if he honestly did not know what rating he should have then he has demonstrated a total lack of sportsmanship when he realized that he was totally dominating the competition, but did not withdraw from those tournaments as a matter of fair play.

Chess.com needs to do something about this kind of abuse of fair play.

His avatar is blank, and no name supplied.  Name and location are both voluntary.  Your name is not supplied....:-)

And if there was a name and location supplied, how do we know it is the real info?   And does it really matter if $$$ are involved?  It's bad behavior which dampens the spirit of fair play on chess.com

The site leaves it up to the director on what settings they want their tournaments to have. Premium status has no effect on the minimum game requirements if the TD sets it.

The solution, for TDs that want to do it, is requiring some minimum number of games for any non-open (rating) events or ones that might include the ratings of default accounts.

     Any new player that doesn't choose a rating gets assigned a rating of 800, so you don't know that this person deliberately misrepresented themselves. If you don't know their avatar, how do you know what their rating is? I found no one you've played a daily game in the last two months with a present rating of 1600.

     In any event, there have been so many forum threads here asking questions like "why is my blitz (or whatever) rating so much higher/lower than my rapid (or whatever) rating?" that it is clear that many newer players have no idea of their real strength. Perhaps this person used daily play to analyze their games more thoroughly and improved rapidly.

     As for the rewards, the motive for cheating when $$$ are on the line is obvious, but simply earning rating points the person could have had by just registering as a stronger player seems ridiculous. 

When in a tournament you can review any player and their stats and archive history by clicking on their avatar, even if it is blank.  Plus their current rating is clearly given beside they player name.   I have avoiding being specific about this player's actual player name as that is requested by chess.com to not do so in a public forum.  And looking at my history will not uncover him until the games that we are now playing are finished.  BTW, his rating is now 1762....

I don't buy the "he didn't know his strength" concept at all.   You just don't play a few games of chess with friends and develop the skills to play on par with the big kids and end up in the top 1-percent on chess.com without some sense about it.

The real takeaway from this whole episode is that any tournament that is not totally open should have the 5-game minimum rule as a fixed requirement, regardless of member status.

I can't see the site setting that. Even if it became a default, it wouldn't be a hard minimum and would allow TDs to remove it. 

The tournament director who set up the tournament should have stated up front that everyone is being looked at prior and it is his discretion not to let someone in.  He could have been booted out prior.  It is work to look over everybody to see if they fit in to the tournament.  This happens more frequently than you think when the tournament director does not screen prior and kick folks out.  

If it set as a default, then how can a TD remove it?  Sounds counter-intuitive.

In any case, I cannot find in the tournament description that the 5-game rule was being applied or not.  If I knew that this tournament was not properly vetted, then I wouldn't waste my time on it.

True, doesn't make you a master, but it clearly shows that you are not a beginner.  I'm not the world's best chess player and I know that, but I also know that I've played enough games in my lifetime to beat most beginners.  When I signed up I picked 1200 as my starting point as an intermediate player.   I've dropped down from that, but at least I'm have not annoyed a bunch of beginners in the process.

Well, the interesting thing about this tournament that I'm talking about is that the TD voluntarily closed his account about 20 days after it started, leaving nobody to mind the ship.   Which brings up another question.... if the TD no longer has an active account on chess.com then the tournament should end immediately when their account is closed.

For example, the default setup of a Daily tournament has a max timeout of 10% and that can be increased, decreased, or removed by the TD. 

If the site decided on a 5 game minimum was to be set, that is likely how it would be implemented, so TDs could decide if they wanted that, more games, less, or no requirements. They almost certainly would not create a hard minimum.

Unfortunately, the minimum game requirements don't show in the tournament info and the only way anyone can know is if the TD adds it to the description or a member that doesn't meet the requirements tries to join 

The TD closed their account after the tournament started. The site won't cancel a tournament that has already started. Once a tournament has started the TD can remove a player from future rounds, but not ongoing games.

Even had the TD closed before it started, if it was set to automatically start, it would, and that's something that I don't believe would change either.

And therein lies the rub...

Maybe a new TD is required if one departs?  A tournament without a TD sounds like a disaster.

Most of the events don't really need a TD after they start. Everything is automatic.