04 Aug 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitCan a player be banned for sandbagging.
Several chess players at RHP evidently considering how often these issues come up. How fair is it for a 1900 player to bag-down to 1400 or lower and enter a banded tournament? I wonder who's going to win THAT one. How fun is it to be beating a person rated 100 points over you who suddenly drops 2 or 3 hundred points.
It screws with the rating system ...[text shortened]... players. Real chess players care, Crowley... you don't. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
P-
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by moon1969Evidently not when you can find players who fluctuate high and low and their ill-gotten trophies are banded tournaments they have no business in participating in.
Can a player be banned for sandbagging.
USCF and other chess organizations (even some chess clubs I took part in) had rating floors.
If there was a floor in place, we wouldn't need to say it's cheating of not. If you call a sandbagger a che@ (IMO they are) YOU'RE the one who gets a warning.
Something needs to be done!
P-
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitI support rating floors since a few years bakc, but evidently there is no drive for Russ to implement those. MAybe he fears database inconsistency if some people do get a lot of points by someones mass resignation while those who win after the rating floor has been hit go without...
Evidently not when you can find players who fluctuate high and low and their ill-gotten trophies are banded tournaments they have no business in participating in.
USCF and other chess organizations (even some chess clubs I took part in) had rating floors.
If there was a floor in place, we wouldn't need to say it's cheating of not. If you call a sand ...[text shortened]... a che@ (IMO they are) YOU'RE the one who gets a warning.
Something needs to be done!
P-
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by PonderableI'd think it could work if the new floor feature only affected all games started after inception.
I support rating floors since a few years bakc, but evidently there is no drive for Russ to implement those. MAybe he fears database inconsistency if some people do get a lot of points by someones mass resignation while those who win after the rating floor has been hit go without...
P-
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by PhlabibitOh, nonsense. Real chess players care about their professional FIDE tournament rating. Your rating on an intartubes chess site, honest no cheaters here 'guv? Don't be so unutterably silly. Take that five point drop and get on with your life, if you have one (I certainly don't, I'm a chess player).
It screws with the rating system and upsets REAL chess players. Real chess players care, Crowley... you don't. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?
Richard
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by adramforallAlso annoying is that it spoils the idea of having banded tournaments.Everyones rating can go up or down by,say,100 points or so over a few weeks but if you enter a banded tournament you dön't expect to be matched against someone 500 points lower than the band.
Regrettably the player in question can do this if he wants. Bluddy annoying but nothing in the rules to stop him doing so.
More annoying is the fact that the player is still entering tournaments despite having 407 ongoing games and stating he couldn't cope with the large number of games he had, so resigned a heap of games.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by biffo konkerThat's a good point. Perhaps, rather than banning them, dropping through a rating floor could trigger automatic suspension from clan or banded tournament competition?
Also annoying is that it spoils the idea of having banded tournaments.Everyones rating can go up or down by,say,100 points or so over a few weeks but if you enter a banded tournament you dön't expect to be matched against someone 500 points lower than the band.
07 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Shallow BlueGood point. But what if I admitted that I intentionally lost games so to be able to enter lower rated tournaments. I am too lazy to read through the rules.
How would you prove intent? It'd be very harsh to ban someone because he has intermittent health problems.
Richard
But it just seems impossible for sandbagging to be against the rules, because as you indicate, there are variety of reason players may resign or timeout a multitude of games, for example, and then subsequently enter a tournament with their artifically low rating compared to their actual strength of play.
So sandbagging is more about being cheesy or unsportsman than violating a rule.
07 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitI like the idea of a floor.
Evidently not when you can find players who fluctuate high and low and their ill-gotten trophies are banded tournaments they have no business in participating in.
USCF and other chess organizations (even some chess clubs I took part in) had rating floors.
If there was a floor in place, we wouldn't need to say it's cheating of not. If you call a sand ...[text shortened]... a che@ (IMO they are) YOU'RE the one who gets a warning.
Something needs to be done!
P-
By the way, if I was a strong player, I would not get much pleasure from a trophy of a low-rated tournament. Would not make me proud to have a trophy of a 1150-1250 tournament, for example, listed on my profile.
Is it more about that the sandbagger just likes to beat lower-rated players and cause them emotional pain, and disrupt the tournament? I guess it is impossible to decipher the motivations of a sick mind.
-------------
As an aside, you see these guys that become inactive and lose a lot of games, and their rating will drop precipitously, but they still have a relatively high TER. And then they return, and your read on their profile "I'm back" or something like that, and they are entering higher rated tournaments with their high TER but with a incredibly low current rating. It may be completely innocent, but . . .
I have had instances of being say at 1900 and entering an 1800+ tournament, for example, and playing someone with a rating of 1250 or so and it is a competitive game. Unfortunately, if I win, I get 0 points or maybe 1 point. If I lose, my rating drops considerably. And it was a competitive game between players of relatively equal strength.