Millionaire Chess 2!!

Atlantic City will have a lot of hustlers too, and they will be new and fresh faces, unknown to the MC staff.

Also, new sandbaggers from outside the country will come which are also unknown to the MC staff.

Given their track record on the issue, I wouldn't bet on them getting it sorted out this time.

It is near impossible to deny anyone entry if they have followed and complied with the requirements. USCF Rules need to be rewritten, which will never happen less than a year before the event. Of course new Sandbaggers will emerge, they have always existed, even when prize money was alot less. There are "degrees" to what lengths people may go. Maybe a legitimate 1400 will not play for a few years, study up all in preperation for a big event.Cheating? Hard to make that accusation. Entirely different story when someone intentionally deceives with false records.

Players have always been allowed to show up at an event a day before and register. How to deny entry with proper ID and a rating that met the criteria?

You don't, unless you only allow pre-registrations, but you can limit the section they can play in potentially, if you have the pre-tourney rules to cover something like that.

they might run into child prodigy who is rated 1400, but his real play strength is probably 1900.

MC does not need to deny entry to sandbaggers. They just need to place them in the open section, where no sandbagging exists.

Afaik MC did reserve the right to place players in a different section, all they need to do is to check evey participant very carefully and exercise that right when they find something that looks suspicious.

Atlantic City??

From the gutter into the sewer.  

Well, they've obviously got their game plan now. Run a tournament for slumming grandmasters and cash-laden foreigners, and a few US slobs will show up to pad the patzer ranks and pay for the bottled water. 

What has yet been commented upon, at least by the "seriouis chess press" (if something like that actually exists), is that the chess has sucked. There are no games for the books here...and never will be. 

Sandbaggers, start your scheming!

Getting rid of sandbaggers.

Best by test is what they did once in a European tournament. Can't remember which one atm. They accepted everyone in the category they wanted . Anyone who was just the slightest bit suspect was then, just before round one, placed in the open group. Rules said no restitution  of entree fee. Next year 0 sandbaggers.

Well, I'm just going to wait until the tournament details are announced before I speculate what's going to happen. Certainly the sandbagging issue needs to be addressed and MC should acknowledge they got taken in. One way to stop sandbaggers this event is require ratings must be established, 50 games, when entries open up. This will stop guys like those who played in probably fake tournaments to get their 50 games in. *Cough cough, details given already but the 4 of them "played" all day in San Diego, CA one day and all day in El Paso, TX the next. Cough cough*. they need this damage control or all the legit U2200 players stuck in their class for years will simply pass on the event....

Sure, a TD can assign anyone to the open section. But what are the grounds? He suspects this person but not that person? What exactly is the criteria to measure "suspicion"? No, not feasible. If someone meets the standards set before the tournament, they can not be arbitrarily denied entry or placed in the open. If a gualifier stated such, who would show up?

Surely the TD would face a discrimination law suit unless the grounds were clearly stated before the start of the tourney and backed by the sanctioning org. Then it is simply a matter of enforcement.

My point is simply thus, "suspicion" is not grounds to deny entry or place a player in the open.

If it were, every tournament would be open to the subjectivity of any TD, creating chaos.

 "MC should acknowledge they got taken in...they need this damage control or all the legit U2200 players stuck in their class for years will simply pass on the event...."

This is absolutely correct. If Mr. Ashley can't man-up and admit just how bad it was, and the utter failure on the chess-side of the event to control the sandbagging, there will be no confidence from the players to hand over $1,000. 

(By the way,  the sandbagging is actually worse than reported here. The players who played the back-to-back tournaments didn't play two, but four tournaments in four days!! They played a total of 24 games in four consecutive days; wink wink. One player actually dropped his rating from 1350 to 1305; after MC2 it shot up to 1572. The fact that the organizers didn't catch this is truly pathetic.) 

To nobodyreally, I'll wager that attempt to discourage sandbagging went by the way side, as it seems certain to be challanged.

 Some reasons that the TD's decision wouldn't be challenged:

Lawsuits are expensive and you pay your own attorney and filing fees.  The last attorney I hired charged $250/hr, and the bill runs up quickly.

You have to convince a judge that you suffered damage.  I can see someone saying that even though I'm a beginner and have a low rating, I really had a chance at winning the big prize.  He'd be laughed out of court.

When you win a lawsuit, you have a piece of paper that says another party owes you money.  There's no guarantee that you will ever collect.

Of course it's feasible. That's the whole point.

The TD or anyone appointed to do this can do it at "his/her discretion". Appeal is not possible. They surely will have their, not arbitrary, reasons to do it.

Discrimination law suit? Nope. Just put it in the 'published' tournament rules. No judge would ever touch that.

Hmmm...I'd like to hear from an accredited TD USCF'S policy regarding this. Like I said, sure it can be done, but it is not. There are good reasons for it. Allow TD'S " at their discretion" to make arbitrary decisions? To nobody, by arbitrary I mean reasons not already written in the guidelines.

2nd. I don't need to hire an attorney to file a law suit. Only cost is the filing fees. If I wanted to enter MC3 and was told I had to play in the open, having met all the requirements to play in a lower section, darn right I'd be upset if the TD could not point to a specific rule written in the guidelines.

Player A having not played in a rated tournament in 2 years "seems suspicious" while player B has not played in 1 year 11 months is not? Just thinking of a possible conflict. It must be written in the guidelines a specific time and enforced equally for everyone. I don't see how such decisions as "suspecting" this player because of such and such and not someone else for some other matter can be made based on this. Would this not leave open the question of integrity and bribery?

A TD needs to be able to point to a specific rule, written in the guidelines in making decisions. I'll stand by this.

The arguement that a judge would throw the case out because personal damages could not be proven is a false one imo. A person enters a restaurant and is denied entry because of race, is told he can eat next door for cheaper. No monetary damage can be proven. But that person can surely file and win a law suit for discrimination without hiring an expensive attorney.

No, you don't need an attorney to file a lawsuit. You don't even need an attorney to proceed with the suit. But if you want to have even a snowball's chance in Hell of winning that suit then you damn well better have an attorney because, rest assured, MC would and their attornies would absolutely mop the floor with your case without a legal advocate of your own.

As the old adage goes - the man who acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client.

I am against sandbagging more so than most. In fact I quit tournaments 25 years ago because of it. I hear many here say "it was obvious he is/was a sandbagger, often after the tournament ends. This may well be very true. I think much tougher and more specific guidelines need to be written and enforced. Suspicions are just that, no matter how they may ring true, decisions can not be based on them.