Sandbagging

Is sandbagging considered cheating on chess.com or just unethical?

I'm unclear what you mean when you use the term, "sandbagging."  Please clarify.

I think it's just unethical, because of the remote chance of proving it.

By sandbagging I mean losing a number of games just so that they can enter a low rated tournament just so that they can win.

Yeah.  Trysts is right.  Extremely hard to prove.  For instance, my current rating is sub 1300, even though I play 1450.  This isn't because I sandbag, but rather the fact that I play many 1800 level players and do not care about my rating at this point.

as stated, the ability to prove that "sandbagging" is taking place is pretty vague, but it seems like pretty baltent cheating to me.  i am a mean, heartless high school teacher though.

Well something like that is much easier to make a judgement on, than saying a particular game was thrown. Of course, if caught or not, sandbagging is cheating.

Thanks for your quick replies guys, I am aware of a sandbagger (lost 500 points in two days) in a tournament im participating in who resigned games in which (s)he had a winning position and a material lead.

i'm not sure chess.com really has a history of doing much about alledged sandbagging.  i've seen it a few times here.  i think i've reported it twice (i think, maybe once) but nothing was ever done that i'm aware.

That's just strange, because "sandbagging" in your example, usually is for monetary gain in some way.

In OTB ratings they have a floor so you can't go down. For example, if you are 1700 then your floor is 1600 and you can't drop below that.

 It's always possible to go back to a lower floor.  i.e., If you lose all games in a tournament where you started at the floor minimum, you will lose 1 rating point, and your floor should drop to the next lower hundred.

However, the USCF also has what are called "money floors".  If you win a tournament with a cash prize at a particular floor (i.e., U1200, U1500, etc.), and your rating floor increases as a result, you are not eligible to win that prize again, even if you compete at that level at a later date.

 In the USCF, I think your floor would be 1500 if your rating is 1700. You rating's 1799? Your floor is still 1500.

The person in question withdrew from the tournament after resigning all games on the same day, 5 days ago. If some circumstances force the player to have no internet access, resigning is preferable to timing out (which can prevent being able to enter tournaments for the next 90 days).

That is very possible too thanks for bringing that possibility up

 It's calculated by subtracting 200 from your highest attained rating, then using the next-lowest even 100 mark.  For example, if you attained 1821, then 1821-200=1621, which would set your floor at 1600.  So to be 1799 with a floor of 1600 is still possible.

I don't really understand why anybody would want to do what you're describing. I've heard this referred to by other poeple, but I just don't see the sense in it. I mean, if you're capable of playing at say,a 1500 level, why would you want to waste your time playing people at lower levels, when the cash prize at most tournaments is almost always much higher in the upper level ranges? Why would you bother to keep strengthening your game at all, if you don't really want to keep raising your rating? And really, if you continue to win in tournaments, your rating is going to continue to rise, whether you want it to or not. If people really did what you describe, they would be wasting their own time and money by intentionally losing so that they would be placed in lower level groups in the future, which, needless to say, would completely defeat the purpose of playing at all, because they would just postpone their opportunities to win bigger prizes, or any prizes at all. And when you think about it, people who play in tournaments are most interested in winning for the pride of accomplishment and the intense intellectual challenge, not for the money. At least that's the case for most chess players I've known. If there really are people out there doing what you're describing, they're only defeating themselves, and wasting their time. If they really make you mad, you should make it your goal to defeat them in as spectacular a fashion as possible, and shame them into playing at the level they're capable of. That would seem to me to be the best way to deal with them, and improve the chess community as a whole while you're at it.

 This isnt hard at all to understand. If I was allowed to play in the under 1600 section of the world open I would have a very good chance of winning the huge first prize there. If I play in the Open section ( where my rating places me ) I would have no chance at all ( realistically speaking ). So, people sandbag to have a better opportunity at winning than they would if they are honest and play where their real strength/rating places them. People rob and murder others for less than $10,000. so why is it hard to believe they would do something like this to increase their chances at a big cash prize ?

If chess was just a game of skill and tournaments had no prizes, especially cash prizes, then of course sandbagging would be all but non-existent.

When money is involved it's easy to understand.

As people have said, sandbagging on Chess.com is hard to prove because:

1. You are allowed to resign a game, at any time, for any reason. If I feel preoccupied with other things, or I just don't like the position or opponent, I can simply choose to resign. If I'm playing 15 games, there is no rule against just quitting half of them.

2. They can simply let a bunch of games time out. It's virtually impossible to prove that they wanted the games to time out, or they were sick and/or on vacation or something and legitimately timed out.

Since Chess.com doesn't offer cash prizes, I doubt it takes sandbagging seriously. If you want to tank your rating in order to have a better chance of winning a first-place ribbon, the staff is probably thinking, "Knock yourself out."