I have noticed that my rating has (although not good previously) plummetted since I have started playing in more tournaments. I suspect that this is due in part to my genuinely poorer recent play. However, I am left in doubt as to how much of that is due to 'sandbaggers' who resign or deliberately lose a series of out-of-tournament games in order to access lower rated tournaments and then reveal their true playing ability when a trophy is up for grabs.I humbly propose, that chess.com track in-tournament ratings separately so that that particular method of sandbagging is no longer available and we, the genuinely interested and honest players, have a more reliable appreciation of our level and it's variation over time (and we have fair odds of winning trophys every now and again).Please comment. I'm eager to hear what others have to say on this.
I'm 11-1-2 in tournaments, I'd look like a pro!
Haha. :-pBut if you'll permit me to take your quip literally:You wouldn't if you don't already. Everyone elses tournament ratings would be based on the same set of their own tournament-play-history. I don't see an issue there.
If people wanted to, couldn't they enter tournaments they didn't want to win in order to lose games there on purpose to keep their rating low for a more desirable tournament?
Yes, @Scottrf, they could. But wouldn't the tournaments they didn't care about be lower rated tournaments in general? And if so then it would be a much more tedious task for a sandbagger to lower their rating. I don't know, maybe. But also, I don't mean to contrive a scheme which makes sandbagging impossible but rather make it absurdly boring that few(er) would bother.On a different note, I tend to feel more tense with tournament games. I'm pretty sure I play differently in the two scenarios even though, in real terms, it's no different to out-of-tournament games. I suspect it would interest users to know their separate in/out tournament game ratings.
I get sick of sandbaggers as well, shah, and I think that the ratings could be separate, but I like having just one rating. Also, what chess.com could do is make it impossible for players to join if their rating has dropped or increased 100 points in the past 30 days. That would prevent some sand-bagging as well, but there isn't a perfect solution, just keep that in mind.
If someone is willing to sandbag to win a virtual trophy, I doubt making it 'absurdly boring' is going to deter them.
I know what you're saying, but these people will always find a way to carry on doing what they are doing. If they considered the lower rated tournaments to be the ones that they didn't care about, they wouldn't be sandbagging to play weaker opponents in the first place. They don't care about improving by playing against the toughest competition, they care about virtual trophies. Sadness like this wouldn't be overcome with seperate ratings or any other system that comes to mind.
Everyone likes a trophy, but normal people aren't willing to drop 100 / 200 points on purpose to get one.
Another idea could be to temporarily block a player from joining tournaments for a period after they have just won one (e.g. one month).
Just punishes the majority for a tiny majority. I don't believe that many of the people think of sandbaggers actually are, I bet more have joined the site recently, improved, or had a number of timeouts to get the lower initial rating etc.
The Tournaments serve an initially unintended purpose in spotlighting and highlighting the activities of some low-down rotten scoundrels here who seek glory and victory via their silicon-implants?
I don't think it's punishment. People do run awards which you can't win two years in succession or some other rule like that. It's not such a radical idea.
I agree with scott, though - it does punish people. What I have a problem with is people creating 15 accounts to win virtual trophies. I have a friend who does it, and I don't really respect him for it - he sandbaggs slightly, joins multiple tourneys with his 6 (and I mean 6) accounts, and then complains about sand-baggers himself. My thinking is, he is a hypocrite. These are the people that I would like to get rid of.
P.S. He is still my friend and he is really nice (so don't think why is he my friend), but he makes questionable choices. We need to teach people like these, not just bash them. Keep that in mind as well.
Yeah. I was just thinking about multiple accounts. That can be dealt with by setting higher Minimum Number of Games Played than is usually done (I think it's five or something).
re:bashing. I'm a big fan of bashing. :-) Especially since I've been accused of cheating by a player and managed to persuade him that I wasn't cheating. But I can see why he would be suspicious if there are enough cheaters on this site.
Multiple accounts are a pain in the but - I wish chess.com would investigate all reports of them, but too many idiots would report just to get a player kicked out if the reporter didn't like them. I like the minimum number of games played. You can also set up invite only tourneys, and those you get to control the members.
bashing - I enjoy bashing too, and I as well have been accused of cheating multiple times (perhaps by the player that accused you), and I can totally get it - people just think that wierd things like conditional moves or really brilliant moves on your part mean that you are cheating. You are just better and they are inferior. :D
P.S. Speaking of tourneys, did you get our Forces Of Nature tounament invite? No sandbaggers, and I am overseeing it to make sure it will be competitive - will you join?
The allegation I got was totally legit. I'd played a game with someone much higher rated than me. After he beat me we had a rematch the next day when I was sober and he asked me whether someone else was playing for me or whether I was using an engine (I guess because I wasn't falling for the simples tricks I'd fallen for previously).
I was a bit embarrassed to admit that he was playing me while somewhat inebriated so I told him I was very tired the night before but after some sleep I could think a little more clearly.
I reckon you can identify duplicate accounts by doing some statistics on opening theory. I believe players go through phases of favourite openings. When two accounts consistently change their favourite opening at the same time repeatedly over a sufficiently long period of time then it becomes quite plausible that the same human is behind both of those accounts.
I think chess.com already do something similar with respect to identifying engine users. If a player's moves match up with a popular engines moves too often then they get investigated.
FoN Tourney - No. I think my timeout stat was still too low to join when the invite went out. Send me a link and I'll take a look.
Being inebriated = my blitz rating.
Ahh, I can see why he thought you were cheating. Sometimes you just don't play your best. ;-)
That is a good idea about checking opening theory; however, players don't do the same every time. I have played e4 since I started, but so has most everybody. I would suggest looking at their names. is it MJHtheBoss1, 2, 3, etc., or is it something different? You can't catch everybody, but with a bit of effort chess.com could stop most people. I would love to be part of that team.
Here's the link - http://www.chess.com/tournament/forces-of-nature-lt-1400 - you should have gotten a message from the TD inviting you. If you didn't get a message, I'll ask him to send you one.
I would have another account but I agree.....is a pain
I actually HAVE another account that someone set up for me a few years ago. When I myself actually joined, I linked it to another email of mine but I have not used it since - it is best to just use one - have it all connected.