SandBaggers (What should be done)

What are Sandbaggers?  Sandbaggers are strong players who intentionally keep their rating low so that they can play against weaker opposition, and collect the prize money in tournaments.  This can be done in multiple ways.  They could get a weaker player to masqarade as them in a tournament where their is no prize fund, lose the tournament purposefully, then play in a big event , and collect the money at a big national tournament.  Or they could play in a small event themselves, and lose purposefully, play in a big national event at a lower class section and win the money. What should be done about these sandbaggers?  One solution is to discourage this type of behavior is to make it so a player can play no lower than what his highest rating (peak) rating was.  For example if a players highest rating was 1500, and they lose horribly in a tournament, and their current rating is now 1200  then the lowest section they could play in is the U1600 section.  I think that by implementing this lower this would cut down on some chess cheaters who only play the game for an easy paycheck.  Thankfully most chess players I know would not do these types of tactics.  However there are always a few spoiled apples that may ruin the bunch.  How should the chess world deal with sandbaggers?.  Let me know what you think.

The problem with your idea is that there are many people that were once good (let's say 1800), but they stop playing for 15 years then decide to get back into it and are only playing at 1400 level.

Perhaps the "Chess World" should politely ask these sandbaggers to halt their antics.

the problem is there is no way to tell if they are just losing a tournament or sandbagging.

We have one in our club he beat a GM in a simulgame(only 2 were able to do that) and he ended lower than me in a tournament. he is fide rated 1450 now but he has been a lot higher.

I don't know if he want to turn up to a tournament to surprise with his low rating or if he just has a losing street.

I have to assume the last.

Which is why I think that we should implement the solution I proposed.  There IS a difference between a losing streak, and sandbagging.  I think that a players highest peak rating should determine what section that they play in at a tournament.

wait...people get paid to play chess?

No, if you reach 1800, your USCF ratings floor kicks in at 1600.  If you reach 1900, your ratings floor kicks in at 1700.  This is not including money floors, which can be even higher.

• This problem only occurs because of money.
• CCA's list of player/rating is a version of the rating floor idea.
• Rating floors are opposed by the USCF ratings committee, along with most people who do any serious study of ratings. (Have they been done away with?)
• I don't like the idea of using the rating peak as much as I like using a rating floor. In fact, having these artificial constructs are what one would term a 'necessary evil'. It would be even better if someone like Dr Glickman could solve the problem in a more rigorous manner. For example, what about parallel rating systems?

Futuregm23,

  You did not touch on the other form of sandbagging. I was told that I belong to this group. Its when a person only played in a few tournaments early in their chess carreer and then stopped. However they continued to study and play at local chess clubs all the while becoming much stronger.

   Now its ten years later and this peson (lets use me for an example) is probably around 1900-2000. But my rating is still registered at 1355. What should they do about me? Is it my fault that I opted not to play in tournaments? Or should I be allowed to play in under 1400 sections?

Is there seriously that big of a problem with people "sharking" chess tournaments?

Wouldn't something as simple as qualifier tournament solve everything?

Group placement would be based on current rating + qualifying result. Top of the brackets would play up. I mean if someone completely bombs the qualifier and then cleans up at the tournament that's a pretty huge red flag. Just comparing move order between the 2 events would reveal a cheat pretty quick.

well you also have to have a fall back for players that get overrated. For example in a torunament a FM or GM could have a horrible blunder against a verry weak player (its happened) and then someone whoes rating was like 1200 all of a suden is 1500+ and now to make them play at a level they never really were would not exactly be fair. I know on Chess.com when I started at 1200 I had a couple good games against 1300+ players and I think at one point I was pushing 1400 but I was never really that good the best way to prevent true sandbaging is simple make it to thier advantage not to sandbag. Offer significiantly more prize money to harder divisions that how all other professional competitions work. Roger Federer dosent sandbag why because if he wins a chalenger tournament he makes maybe a tenth of winning a major.

My friend was like you except he wasn't ashamed of using it to his advantage. We played in a really big tournament and he went in the U-1500 section. The funny thing was he had a terrible first day (draw and loss) before going on to win all of his games so he only received a few hundred instead of over a thousand dollars. We had a big laugh at his first day missteps when he obviously should have won his section. So to answer your question I don't think it's wrong because even though you're good you will be affected by tourament jitters more than an experienced tournament player would. Also until you earn your rating your still considered to be a 1355 player no matter how good you are, so it's only fair that you can use that to your advantage if you haven't played in tournaments (imo).

I understand that Dr. Mark Glickman not only opposes ratings floors (presumably because, as a mathematician, he cares more about the predictive power of ratings and less about the political/participation fallout of not having floors), but advocates the use of 'categories' for purposes of separation prize money sections in tournaments.  Most people know their rating, but many who have not looked at their USCF "General" page and the norm performances they have achieved, do not know their 'category.'

[A norm, as with GM norms and IM norms, requires a tournament performance of a sufficiently high level for a particular corresponding norm level.  A norm requires at least 4 games in the same event, and I think it disallows playing the same player more than once, so match play doesn't count.  A player needs 5 norms of a particular level -- say, 3rd category -- to become listed as a 3rd category player.  Often one will achieve 3rd category will norms such as:  3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd -- therefore earning the 3rd category title and also giving the player two 2nd category norms towards the 2nd category title.]  

I don't think the use of 'categories' solves all the problems discussed above, but at the very least it avoids the problem of someone getting very lucky in a few games to receive an artificially high rating, then being 'punished' for the high rating caused by opponents blunders.  But the system is unlikely to become popular, in part because the same problem caused by ratings floors also exists with categories:  old players getting weaker will still be in their same category as they reached at their (younger) peak.

By the way, it is possible to lower your ratings floor (though perhaps not a money floor), but I believe you have to write the USCF to make a case, e.g. "I reached my peak rating of 2034 back in 1992, so I have a floor of 1800.  Not only have I fallen to that 100 floor, but I have failed to gain a single point above 1800 for the last several years, due to age and other factors.  Please consider lowering my floor so I can participate in U1800 sections."  Something like that.  They can grant or reject the request, I presume based on the merits of the player's case.

you can find a sandbagger by looking in there game history, if the have multiple losses within 1-5 moves that means they are sandbagging

Rating floors I can agree with because if you're capable of reaching a 2000 rating then you obviously have enough skill to get there.  If you lose games on purpose just to win in a 1600 section that's just abusing the system. 

   Every game has sandbaggers. In pool their called sharks. In cards their called pidgeons.

A sandbagger simply put is anyone who uses a chess engine, doesn't resist cheating, moves all have 2 be on ur own. Not creating 2 accounts. There is 1 reason u cannot create 2 accounts if ur ban/block evading.

I’m just going to not be involved in ratings anymore since many fake 1300s playing like 2700. I know nothing the moves they make. I just play without cheating.