Sandbagging Online Games

I feel that some people will sandbag online games for the sake of rating points to meet tournament requirements. Maybe I am the only one that feels this way.

How does Chess.com address this issue? I would love to hear from any Staff of the site on this. I know it goes on as I have had non-tournament games  go 1 to 3 moves and the other player will resign; of course lose rating points...I am only guessing the point of the resignation is to lose points and possibly joint a tournament with low rating requirements and (possibly) win. I feel that the integrity of the tournaments held on this site can come into question because of this. (which would be a shame).

I have read that USCF has a rule to deal with this problem. Does Chess.com have a way to keep this from happening? Or a better question might be, Should it have a rule to deal with this?

What are your (other members) thoughts on the issue?

My proposal as a solution: Have a floor-rating a player can be in regards to tournament ratings. Say, 200 points below their highest ratings achieved. So a player that has reached 2000 cannot ever fall below 1800 as far as tournaments ratings are concerned. This is to keep people from playing games and losing on purpose and win low rated tournament. This is not to say that a person's rating will never fall below -200 their highest, just for tournament purpose. This in no way will interfere with anything other than sandbagging so I don't see any reason as to why anyone would not see it as a plus to the site's (and chess) integrity.

The only problem with your proposal is people who play avidly, achieve a high rating, and then take a few years off (for a kid or something) and return, with their skills much diminished from rust.

 If they are truly interested in returning to the game, then those skills will return quickly. You never truly forget it. Play some non-tournament games, then when you feel ready, jump back into tournament play. It does not stop anyone from playing.

The problem you are stating has to do with someone that might not even be here playing on this site anymore (if they stopped playing chess for years). So you want this issue to continue base on someone that doesn't play chess on this site? I don't find that argument convincing, not even a little; I feel it is a weak argument. I still welcome opinions though, that I have no promblem with.

A good idea, to improve even more the excellent tournament implementation that chess.com has.

Sandbagging will always be a problem. It's easier to just live with it, IMHO.

I think the floor is a good idea.  Unfortunately there are people out there low enough to do something like that, and sandbag just to get the satisfaction of beating players who are clearly not as skilled as them to win a tournament.  Although I would tend to think people that reach the 2000+ level are not these kind of people.

 Maybe, but heart-disease, cancer, obesity, etc. will always be a problem too. However, I do not agree to just live with it or that it is easier just to live with it. There's a solution to everything; just have to try and make everyday a little better than before. Kinda like chess, you try and get a little better everyday. You don't have to solve every problem the entire world has, just work on one, improve on it, then do it again; before you know it, you will have done something amazing, something that was considered impossible before you came along.

The reason I posted is so that it will not "always be a problem", as it should not be always a problem.

 "Although I would tend to think people that reach the 2000+ level are not these kind of people."

I hope not too, although like you said, there are people low enough that would do it. Even if I am wrong and nobody, not even one person would even think of doing this on this site, would it be such a bad idea to implement this anyway?; would it be so terrible?

Another thing to consider is that the someone that is 2000 on this site might be rated over what they should be; there's a post here that said the ratings are a little high. I tend to agree as I know for a fact I am not over 1600 as I am shown to be here. I am at most 1500 (maybe slightly less) by my own estimation (and no sandbagging any games either).

I am in the same boat!  I reached 1804 as my peak rating, and knew it was inflated due to timeout wins etc.  I'm really more like 1600 I think.  But getting to 2000 on chess.com against pretty tough competition, even with some undeserving wins, takes a fairly good player; and I don't know if anyone good enough to get there would want to willingly sandbag those points just to win a tournament?

 NM Ozzie seems to agree. Thank you for your response as I feel it would be an improvement. I do not see any downside to this idea, at least nobody has made, imho, a convincing argument.

This forum may interest you too:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/tournaments/why-i-dont-sign-up-for-any-chesscom-tournaments

Hmmm... I'm not going to argue either side of this idea, however I would be careful when comparing cancer to cheating at online chess, Hammerschlag.

I just can't in good conscience subscribe to such a defeatist approach.

I think it's a great suggestion -- regarding some of the other concerns, I suspect that they are an all but insignificant set of exceptions but perhaps a modification to the suggestion, perhaps something such as using a moving average or somehow incorporating a players RD value instead of a simple hard cap, might serve to ameliorate some of them.  Ultimately, though, the problem with adding complexity is the flood of "Why can't I join this tournament" topics that would surely ensue so I'd still lean towards the simpler solution.

But that comparison was quite apt for the intended purpose, which was, as I understand it, simply to say that something should be done about it.  Nowhere did she say that this problem is as bad as cancer.

"I don't know if anyone good enough to get there would want to willingly sandbag those points just to win a tournament?" ~ Starwraith

~~~

I am not in anyway trying to be mean with this response (and I hope I do not offend you in any way) but I think you believe everyone is good; everyone will do what is right; there's nothing wrong with that. It's good to be optimistic, to have a good view of things. Although I think that looking at the world with rose colored glasses is good, I also think that taking them off occasionally is good too (or at least peaking over them).

I am not accusing anyone of doing this (sandbagging) and I am not saying that ~2000 level players do it as I chose that number randomly. Who knows, maybe level 1600s do it 10x more than any other rated players. I don't really care what level players do it, I just don't agree with sandbagging, on any level.

I didn't say it was a bad comparison, I just said to be careful when using it, if he re-uses it again in a different context, for example. In this case, it was fine.

But that's not the point of the thread. So I think I'll stop taking up the valuable space.

 I agree with you Nytik, cancer and cheating at online chess do not compare; my response was not to compare the two as I am fully aware real life and online life has nothing (or very little) in common. My real life is infinitely more important to me. My point is, I am not willing to just stand by and do nothing (of the problem) as it would be easier just to sit back and do nothing in either case.

BTW: "she"

Seems to be a good idea. 

I think it's a good idea, as a suggestion to the staff - one thing to clarify is that I don't know if a 200 pt floor makes sense - but I trust that chess.com staff would come up with something reasonable.

I think 200 points is not enough. Maybe 300. I say this because when I first joined this site, I won a few games, and my rating quickly reached almost 1500. After a few weeks, it was back down to 1250 or so. I have since improved, and am now rated around 1450, but I'm sure others might be in a similar situation and not improve, and be left over 200 points below their peak rating and unable to enter tournaments at their own level.