Why I don't sign up for any chess.com tournaments

MM78 wrote: "It started over a year ago and with over 1400 players, you are complaining that less than 1% are now very highly rated."

Vance917 wrote: "Are you trying to tell me that all of these players joined just before this tournament began?  And wait, that's not all.  They also have so little experience with chess as to not realize that they have no business in a tournament whose entry is defined by such a rating range?  No, I think I will have to stick with the sandbagging explanation as the only one that makes any sense whatsoever."

Vance, what percentage of people in the tournament would you think would be new to the site? I don't find it odd that some people who entered were new players with high strengths. When did the tournament start? There are only 11 players there, seems like you don't need to do too much detective work to figure out what was going on.

That tournament started less than ten months after the website started, and less than one month after I joined.

At first, it was a struggle for me to get my rating over 1300, but I managed to get it over 1400 a few months after the tourney started. In other words, I was a player of similar strength to the others who were entering the tournament at the time. I managed to win a few games, and by July (5 months into the tourney), a few timeout wins had lifted my rating to an all-time high of 1566. With a few exceptions, I was able to keep my rating above 1500 after that. I've had some help from timeout wins (perhaps several of the people on the list you posted have had similar help). My "Best Win" was by timeout in a position that was losing for me, and was one of the three wins I scored in Round 3 of the tournament.

If you're really bothered by the increase in skill and ratings that happens in a tournament this long, you can always join a smaller tournament that takes less time.

I think that's legit PhillipN - I don't have any problem with someone being rated upwards of 1650 or so that wins a tournament of this size, because in the end you'll be playing people that high - but when the gap is over 500-600 pts, then that just seems to raise some flags.

The point of the ratings-slot tournaments as opposed to open tournaments is that players who are not 2000 and above beleive that they are competing against players of relatively equal ability and that if they play well have a chance to finish in the top 3. "As good a chance as the next guy." The solution is to have these tournaments or an additional set of tournaments which require a substantially higher number of mininum games played, so that the ratings are well-established.  

I think this is a case of bad statistics. Selection bias is in full play here. Who did you expect to do well in the tournament. Obviously it's going to be good players. And what's already been pointed out is that with so many players, with such a rapidly growing website, there are bound to be strong players in this mix.

That guy cons hasn't been rated below 1400 since febuary of 2008... so this tournament has been going for over a year?

His worst loss ever was to a guy who was rated too high to join this tournament. LOL

In a recent worldwide telephone survey, 100% of respondents indicated that they did in fact have a telephone in the house.

Extrapolation:  100% of homes worldwide have telephones.

I can find some 10-year-old kids who don't know me, and I don't know them.  So neither party has any track record with the other.  And I can propose that we have a 1v1 basketball tournament.  Now I am horrible in basketball (soccer is my game).  Still, I can't imagine too many 10-year-olds beating me on the boards, or off the dribble, or in any other way on the court.  Even if they don't know that as an adult, I would win, I would know it.  So my proposing such a tournament -- or even entering an existing one -- is unethical.  How much better would it be if my "adultness" didn't show on the outside, as in, say, a chess rating?  A 2300 player has a keen self-awareness of being a very good chess player.  Such a player knows full well that he should not be slumming with the 1400s.

The selection bias argument does not play (and, believe it or not, I actually wrote a book on selection bias).  All it explains is that those still standing have higher scores at the end than those they knocked down.  It does not explain the magnitude of the discrepancy.

And to think of all those posts bitterly complaining that higher ranked players won't deign to associate with the hoi polloi...

It's important to realize that the process of distilling the best players from a group, as a tournament should, not only has a bias for those that should be high rated, but also affects that rating while the distillation is occurring.

I think the magnitude can be explained by the sheer number of people in this tournament -- a smaller tournament would have a smaller bias.

I can accept that your main gripe is that it is unethical for a very strong player to enter a tournament for which they qualify at that time.

The selection bias was directed at what seemed your incredulity that these players would be so highly rated. I accept as a matter of course that people who will qualify will play - so it just didn't make sense to me, this complaint that the top remaining players have a high rating. But I think I understand now, given your statements on ethics.

Actually my argument doesn't seem to be anything because I wasn't making an argument.  I merely asked what the motivation for their sandbagging could be.  Thanks for the tirade, regardless.

This post proves my suspicion that this was the same tournament that I joined, as Chess.com began having their tournament feature in February of 2008, and they started it out with an official tournament called the "1st Chess.com Tournament." I joined the 1001-1400 division of this tournament, and (much to my surprise) was not eliminated until Round 3.

Yes, this tournament is still going on; there are two games (neither of which will affect who advances) that need to finish before Round 4 can start.

We can discuss ethics, motivation, timing, human nature, etc.. for hundreds of posts. But I see ony one or two posts that offer viable solution that chess.com may be able to incorporate. They were hardly addressed as it seems we're more interested in furthering the debate as opossed to a solution.....

A posible solution:

If a tournament player's rating comes to exceed the tourney brackets upper limit (say the 1200-1400 group) in any round that he/she wins, then that player is automacally promoted/placed into the tourney next higher bracket (1400-1600).

This takes care of the sandbaggers, unrated new players, etc. Policies and rules can be further tweeked and ajusted to level the bracket players. An example would be two bracket promos max as ones rating would tend to level after the time invested.

The problem is that each of the tournaments is basically a standalone, and are only seperated into contiguous and mutually exclusive rating brackets by the tournament director who's set them up.

In order to do this, I'd imagine that the tournament structure would need to be redesigned to allow the linking of multiple tournaments, and to ensure that the linked tournaments were set up the same way, and that the rating bands were contiguous and mutually exclusive before the problem of how you seed each round as players shift up and down between the brackets can even be considered.

I think they have resolved some of this issue with " a minimum no. of games played option - so if you (or chess.com) sets the minimun no of games to a 100 or so, then this should resolve the sandbagging issue somewhat.

you're only allowed to register for the chess.com tournament in the rating range you fall into. If the rating of the person happened to be at the 1000-1400 range at the commencement of the tournament, they are forced to play in that section. I doubt anyone had some nefarious sandbagging scheme in mind.

edit:

it's also important to note the time frame this tournament spans. In the (less than) year I've been on chess.com my rating has gone from 1035 (at worst) to the 1600/1700 range as I've learned about the game.

I don't think the promotion scheme is a good idea at all. It's not well thought through.

I think the proposal that you have to have played a minimum number of games is a good one, but I thought that was actually in place already?  I agree someone who is capable of being 2300+ within a year would be above 1400 within a very few games...I know I didn't lose maore than a game for about my first 20 games or so until I met guys 1900-2000 (and the rating have gotten inflated more since then, I was peaked at 2200 now I am at 2400, I'm not playing any better imo.)

Haha MM78 I am the exact opposite! :-)

But yeah, I won my first 48 games here.