This thread has got me thinking about the etymology of the term sandbagging in this context. Without actually looking it up I suspect that it must have something to do with hot air balloons and the fact that sandbags are what is initially used to hold them down while they're being inflated.
Any other theories?
well,let us just say he or she could get away with it once then if the person comes up with the same deal he/she would have his /her thumb broken or is that only in pool ?!! hmmm oh well its a thought.
As an added buffer, perhaps a separate 'tournament rating' could be added to each players profile based on tournament performance which could constitute the basis for further tournament eligibility. Thus, people who were rated 1400 but mysteriously played at a 1700 level in tournaments would be required to enter 1700-rated tournaments.
I actually thought about this. I thought that the person would have their entered tournamants, wins (place), date & rating at time of tournament be part of their profile; a box off to the side similar to the box you see if you go to your online games page that will show this information. I think that the Elo performance rating for (each) the tournament can be use as well in determining this ratings-floor. For example, people can actually calculate Bobby Fischer's performance rating through his candidate matches leading up to the '72 Championships. If I remember correctly (beating his opponents 6-0, Taimanov and Larsen both, then beat Petrosian 6.5 to 2.5), his performance rating was incredibly amazing, which probably could have probably predicted his (percentage) chance of winning the Championship (which would have been a good chance). So, how you do in tournaments you enter will eventually show your true color. I think that might be a good idea to add to the ratings-floor.
I think my idea of having this be a tournament variable created by the tournament director is better than imposing a rating floor on all tournaments. That way, it's up to the discretion of the tournament, and let's remember that all tournaments are opt-in.
I already suggested rating floors a long time ago. They only implement it for the sake of timeouts.
There's a bit of a difference, though, between what's being proposed here -- establishing a virtual rating floor for the purpose of determining tournament eligibility only, and what's been proposed as a more formal rating floor mechanism that would stop a player's actual rating from dropping.
Maybe a those excellent could be Options for the Tournament manager? Yeah, more work for the programmers but they seem to solve/fix everything
I think that sandbagging is a problem when money is involved. Since the tournaments here don't involve money I don't see the point. I don't think that I would deliberately lose 300 rating points so that I could say that I won an under 1600 tournament. I would much have a higher rating so that good players would want to play with me so that I can improve. That is why I play on chess.com-I want to get better. If want to beat up on crappy chess players I don't need to go on-line.
I think that sandbagging is a problem when money is involved. Since the tournaments here don't involve money I don't see the point. I don't think that I would deliberately lose 300 rating points so that I could say that I won an under 1600 tournament. I would much have a higher rating so that good players would want to play with me so that I can improve. That is why I play on chess.com-I want to get better. If want to beat up on crappy chess players I don't need to go on-line.
Sandbagging is definitely a problem. There are 3 players rated over 1700 in the 7th Chess.com tournament 1200-1400 that started less than a month ago.
I think that sandbagging is a problem when money is involved. Since the tournaments here don't involve money I don't see the point. I don't think that I would deliberately lose 300 rating points so that I could say that I won an under 1600 tournament. I would much have a higher rating so that good players would want to play with me so that I can improve. That is why I play on chess.com-I want to get better. If want to beat up on crappy chess players I don't need to go on-line.
That's great that you won't do it; if you are saying you are everybody, then there's no problem. Thank you for not willing to abuse the system, but there are those who will. You have to remember, after you roll over all those under 1600 and finish top of the tournament, you will be up to where you were before, maybe even higher. I don't think it's just money that cause people to do this, although you can probably argue that it is the main (#1) reason for doing so.
i don't have the strength to read this whole thread right now but i just reported a sandbagger. a week or so ago he was a 2000 and he entered a tournament i'm in as a low 1500 and had gotten as low as 1300s. he resigned 95 games in a row. he claimed he'd never heard the term sandbagging. plus he acted like it was no big deal and he even told me, "i'll be back up in no time"
haha cheater!
Sandbagging is definitely a problem. There are 3 players rated over 1700 in the 7th Chess.com tournament 1200-1400 that started less than a month ago.
Probably no sandbagging here. In this case it is the tournament requirements that are the problem. Official tournaments attempt to include as many members as possible. The players in question have played few games. It takes only 5 rated games completed to register which does not allow a rating to stabilize.
Although it may not have occurred here, official tournaments in the 1200-1400 range allow premium members who have completed zero games.
Edit: Official tournaments in the 1001-1200 range allow premium members who have completed zero games. Official tournaments in the 1201-1400 range allow premium members who have completed less than 5 games.
This thread has got me thinking about the etymology of the term sandbagging in this context. Without actually looking it up I suspect that it must have something to do with hot air balloons and the fact that sandbags are what is initially used to hold them down while they're being inflated.
Any other theories?
Or perhaps it's simply in reference to the way you keep high water at bay....
Sandbagging is definitely a problem. There are 3 players rated over 1700 in the 7th Chess.com tournament 1200-1400 that started less than a month ago.
Probably no sandbagging here. In this case it is the tournament requirements that are the problem. Official tournaments attempt to include as many members as possible. The players in question have played few games. It takes only 5 rated games completed to register which does not allow a rating to stabilize.
Although it may not have occurred here, official tournaments in the 1200-1400 range allow premium members who have completed zero games.
Among those 3 players, I checked it out, and you are right. However, there is a player in the tournament, kng, who is currently rated 1661, with over 600 games played, and a peak rating of over 2000.
http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/kng
Hah, Gonnosuke, you didn't withdraw before scalping me twice -- and in the Grob as well. I too felt like you were the grim reaper.
Truth is, I had no business being in the second round of that tournament -- I still have no idea how it happened.
This thread has got me thinking about the etymology of the term sandbagging in this context. Without actually looking it up I suspect that it must have something to do with hot air balloons and the fact that sandbags are what is initially used to hold them down while they're being inflated.
Any other theories?
I think the most likely explanation is that a sand bag was a handy ambush weapon for thugs in the 19th century -- unexpected and leaving no mark. Here's one of several versions of that etymology:
http://golf.about.com/od/historyofgolf/f/hfaq_sandbag.htm
Suppose all I really want in online play is to LEARN how others can bust my openings, so I play out 10-15 moves, get a worse position, and resign. Over and over and over again, LEARNING all along. (What's the motto for chess.com? "Play, Learn, Share"?) Call it sandbagging if you like -- and I realize it certainly would LOOK like sandbagging -- but I would think this is a perfectly legitimate way to use online chess sites. Does this site have a policy against it? Those who get mad that an opponent doesn't care to play through to the endgame, game after game, are simply taking their online chess here too seriously. A player has a right to resign, plain and simple. (By the way, I don't actually use the above method, so don't bother looking for sandbagging patterns in my game history.)
P.S. On a mostly unrelated note, I know that Mark Glickman (inventor of the "Glicko" rating system) of the USCF Ratings Committee is strongly against ratings floors, as they tend to cause ratings inflation.
This thread has got me thinking about the etymology of the term sandbagging in this context. Without actually looking it up I suspect that it must have something to do with hot air balloons and the fact that sandbags are what is initially used to hold them down while they're being inflated.
Any other theories?
I think the most likely explanation is that a sand bag was a handy ambush weapon for thugs in the 19th century -- unexpected and leaving no mark. Here's one of several versions of that etymology:
I think it fits perfectly with the hot air balloon. Sandbags are not only used at the beginning while they are being inflated, they are also used during flight to keep the balloon at a certain height. If it becomes necessary to quickly gain altitude, they can be thrown off.
So, a means of artificially keeping something weighed down... sounds like a perfect visual.
I don't mind the floor concept, but it would need to be tied to average recent performance, not all-time highest rating. The player who leaves for a time and comes back rusty aside (I agree, that's weak in and of itself), there are often people who have streaks and spikes that are well ahead of their true ability. This is especially true of newcomers to the site who frequently start at 1200, bang off 3 or 4 wins (or even more) against people who are starting out with similar (but unearned) 1200 ratings and now this newcomer suddenly finds himself a 1600 rated player when he's actually playing several hundred points below that. Eventually, the odds will catch up to him; it may take him a loooong time to reach again his 'highest' rating. In the meantime, by your proposed system, he would be ineligible for any tournament at his true level.
Even seasoned 1800 players have had brief winning streaks (that included those 2 or 3 lucky time-out wins against 2000 players) that catapult them up to a 2100 rating they'll not see again in the foreseeable future.
Perhaps a better concept would be that tournament eligibility is determined by a floor based on your average rating for the few months previous to the tournament. That way, the only people that could sandbag and get in would be the people who deliberately kept their rating low all the time just to win low-level tournaments. I have to think the satisfaction derived from that is so small as to keep this kind of player encounter fairly minimal.
As an added buffer, perhaps a separate 'tournament rating' could be added to each players profile based on tournament performance which could constitute the basis for further tournament eligibility. Thus, people who were rated 1400 but mysteriously played at a 1700 level in tournaments would be required to enter 1700-rated tournaments.