PDA

View Full Version : Sandbagging



Bob Gillanders
03-26-2009, 01:44 PM
I have been asked to comment on the issue of sandbagging. For the benefit of those few lucky souls not familiar with the practice, a definition:

Sandbagging - to intentionally lower your chess rating to become eligible to win prizes you should not be entitled to. (pardon the grammar).

Sandbagging is unethical and shows bad sportsmanship. Nevertheless, it is a fact of life. I'm sure everyone has entertained the thought at one time "hmmm.....I'm having a bad tournament, if I throw my last 2 games, my rating will go down and I can play in a lower class next weekend....and win the class prize !" Fortunately, the vast majority of us resist the impulse and play to win every game.

Sandbagging brings disrepute to the game of chess. As such, it violates both CFC and FIDE tournament rules. I refer you to Article 12: The conduct of the players in the FIDE Laws of Chess:

12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

Practically speaking, sandbagging is a very difficult area to police. Ratings go up and down, intentionally or otherwise. I don't know of any reliable rule or test that could accurately do the job. I believe this preface to the FIDE Laws of Chess is relevant to this issue:

" The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his/her freedom of judgement and thus prevent him/her from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic, and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view."

I agree. There are no specific regulations in the CFC handbook to cover sandbagging. We leave it to the good judgement of our TD's and organizers. We are blessed with many good experienced TD's who have dealt with sandbagging. I would invite them to share their thoughts and recommendations here for some of our newer TD's who are still struggling with sandbagging issues.

One final thought. We must not encourage frivilous claims of sandbagging. Fortunately, most cases of sandbagging are obvious when you carefully review a players history. TD's are encouraged to report (in confidence) suspected cases of sandbagging to the CFC office.

Kerry Liles
03-26-2009, 03:10 PM
...
most cases of sandbagging are obvious when you carefully review a players history...


I'd be interested in seeing an example of this (of course, without the players name or any identifying marks...)

I find it hard to believe that this can be "proven". Of course, the accused can always claim he/she regained his/her previous form... and that just happened to coincide with winning the class "C" section by a huge margin.

Bob Gillanders
03-26-2009, 04:24 PM
To clarify,

I should have said " the most blatant sandbagging will be revealed with a careful review of a players history".

The pattern I would look for is a repeating pattern of excellent results in tournaments with BIG class prizes, and POOR results in other tournaments. Very difficult to prove with absolute certainty without a confession, but if a prudent TD is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.......;)

Alex Ferreira
03-26-2009, 05:44 PM
Kerry,

There are a few cases where I myself have been unsure of this as a possibility.
Because it's so hard to prove, I wouldn't want to make them public.
Feel free to e-mail me at alex.ferreira@utoronto.ca .

Like Bob mentioned, most ratings do fluctuate and most people are just trying to have a good time, and even the ones where it seems there's foul play, are nearly impossible to enforce.

Alex F.

Bob Armstrong
03-26-2009, 05:44 PM
Below is an article ( edited ) that is coming out in the April 1 Issue of Scarborough Community of Toronto Chess News & Views on this issue ( I initially raised it with Bob ):

" A GTA CFC member has run into what appears to be a clear sandbagging problem at a CFC-rated tournament at a Toronto chess club. I believe I also know of a case that is very suspicious with an Ontario player I have played a couple of times. I was told by someone that he was dropping his rating in hopes in future of using it to win a large lower-rated tournament prize, either here or in USA.

You may remember that in Issue # 10-11 of SCTCN & V, I proposed using an anti-sandbagging rule here in Canada, if we could get an organizer to organize what we called a “ Class Tournament “:

" A “ Class Tournament “ Is a Good Idea

Last Issue, we lobbed into the discussion arena, the idea of holding a “ Class Tournament “. Its features were:

1. The Equal Treatment Rule - ……….
2. The “ More “ Prizes Rule - ………..
3. The Anti-Sandbagging Rule – A player may not play in a section for which he would otherwise qualify, if, in the last 3 years, his rating has been higher than the ceiling rating of the section + 50 pts ( e.g. a player is rated 1799 and wants to play in the 1799 & Under section. But in 2007, his rating was 1850. His highest allowable rating would be 1799 + 50 = 1849. Therefore he cannot play in his otherwise normal section ). "

But this rule could be put into use in any tournament!

I wrote Mark Dutton, an IA, to see what he knows of the experience with an anti-sandbagging rule here in Canada ( USA organizers sometimes use an anti-sandbagging rule in their tournaments ). Mark replied:

“ I have a couple of anti sandbagging rules that I use when running large class chess tournaments.

1. RATINGS: We will use your HIGHEST published rating right now for placement into a section. Players rated under more than 1 system, we will use your highest.

2. TD Discretion: Refuse entry to an obvious sandbagger -- eg. a regular 2000+ player entering the Under 1800 section because they dropped their rating 2 classes - to like 1790 or something like that.

The CFC does NOT need a rule.

The ORGANIZERS of events must ensure that FAIR PLAY is used and that in class tournaments, the organizer and tournament director should police their own event.

I hope that this is helpful. “

Do you think CFC should publicize such a rule as I have suggested ( or similar ), and “ recommend “ [ not necessarily put it into the CFC Handbook as a formal “ rule “ for organizers ] to Canadian organizers that they seriously consider making it in future, a term and condition of their CFC-rated tournaments?

Bob

Kerry Liles
03-26-2009, 06:09 PM
...
I wrote Mark Dutton, an IA, to see what he knows of the experience with an anti-sandbagging rule here in Canada ( USA organizers sometimes use an anti-sandbagging rule in their tournaments ). Mark replied:

...

2. TD Discretion: Refuse entry to an obvious sandbagger -- eg. a regular 2000+ player entering the Under 1800 section because they dropped their rating 2 classes - to like 1790 or something like that.

The CFC does NOT need a rule.



It is pretty hard to formulate a rule that permits "TD Discretion". I wouldn't play in a tournament where such arbitrary decisions are made in the name of "fair play". What does "a regular 2000+ player" mean? Does it mean someone who has been known to be that strong at some point?

I can understand taking the highest "current" rating (if for example there are US, CFC and FIDE ratings available *and* they are all current and not 5 years old). That is reasonable; TD discretion is harder to accept.

Pierre Dénommée
03-27-2009, 01:38 PM
It goes against the CFC Code of Ethics, but it is extremely hard to prove the offense.

Prevention by organisers is to offer lesser prices in the lower sections in order to encourage the players to raise their rating for access to better prices.

The FQE has an antisandbagging rules in its Swiss Pairing regulations but is is essentially a cut and paste of what Quebec organisers were putting in their publicity. The rule has been enacted in order to remove the text from all tournament announcements.

Article 1.1 Assignation d’une cote à un joueur déjà coté

L’arbitre peut, à sa discrétion, attribuer une cote à la hausse à tout joueur inscrit dans une compétition officielle. Bien que cette liste ne soit nullement limitative, cette décision peut reposer sur un des motifs suivants :

a) le joueur a démontré une supériorité marquée sur les autres joueurs de sa classe ;

b) le joueur a démontré une tendance à obtenir des résultats supérieurs lorsque de grosses sommes d’argent sont à l’enjeu et des résultats inférieurs lorsqu’il n’y a aucun prix significatif ;

c) la cote du joueur vient tout juste de descendre sous la limite d’une classe par suite de résultats récents et statistiquement très peu probables ;

d) les coups joués, les paroles, la gestion du temps ou d’autres actions du joueur lors de compétitions antérieures ont donné à l’arbitre des raisons de croire que le joueur n’a pas fourni tous les efforts raisonnables pour éviter de perdre ;

e) l’arbitre a des motifs raisonnables de croire que le joueur s’est délibérément retiré d’une compétition précédente dans le but de s’assurer que sa cote ne grimperait pas trop.

Un joueur auquel on attribue une cote à la hausse devrait, si cela est possible, être avertit de ce fait avant le début du tournoi ; il pourra alors décider de jouer ou de se retirer du tournoi. Cependant, il n’est pas toujours possible d’avertir le joueur à l’avance car l’attribution d’une cote à la hausse peut être basée sur des faits observés par l’arbitre durant le tournoi.

On peut appliquer cet article quelle que soit la méthode d’appariement utilisée et sans avoir à l’indiquer à l’avance dans la publicité du tournoi.

Egidijus Zeromskis
03-27-2009, 02:08 PM
Article 1.1 Assignation d’une cote à un joueur déjà coté

L’arbitre peut, à sa discrétion, attribuer une cote à la hausse à tout joueur inscrit dans une compétition officielle. Bien que cette liste ne soit nullement limitative, cette décision peut reposer sur un des motifs suivants :

a) le joueur a démontré une supériorité marquée sur les autres joueurs de sa classe ;

b) le joueur a démontré une tendance à obtenir des résultats supérieurs lorsque de grosses sommes d’argent sont à l’enjeu et des résultats inférieurs lorsqu’il n’y a aucun prix significatif ;

c) la cote du joueur vient tout juste de descendre sous la limite d’une classe par suite de résultats récents et statistiquement très peu probables ;

d) les coups joués, les paroles, la gestion du temps ou d’autres actions du joueur lors de compétitions antérieures ont donné à l’arbitre des raisons de croire que le joueur n’a pas fourni tous les efforts raisonnables pour éviter de perdre ;

e) l’arbitre a des motifs raisonnables de croire que le joueur s’est délibérément retiré d’une compétition précédente dans le but de s’assurer que sa cote ne grimperait pas trop.

Un joueur auquel on attribue une cote à la hausse devrait, si cela est possible, être avertit de ce fait avant le début du tournoi ; il pourra alors décider de jouer ou de se retirer du tournoi. Cependant, il n’est pas toujours possible d’avertir le joueur à l’avance car l’attribution d’une cote à la hausse peut être basée sur des faits observés par l’arbitre durant le tournoi.

On peut appliquer cet article quelle que soit la méthode d’appariement utilisée et sans avoir à l’indiquer à l’avance dans la publicité du tournoi.

May somebody translate this to English? :rolleyes:

Bob Gillanders
03-27-2009, 02:12 PM
Yes, I agree. TD's discretion can appear to be arbitrary and subjective, and that I why I believe that TD's should be very sure before laying a charge of sandbagging. The TD should be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and have compelling evidence to support him.

Nevertheless, for reasons stated, the ultimate authority must remain with the TD.

Paul Leblanc
03-27-2009, 04:07 PM
The only way to prevent this practice is for organizers to include in the terms of play that players cannot win section prizes if their published CFC/FIDE/USCF has exceeded the rating ceiling for that section over the past X number of years. Historical CFC ratings are easy to find by reviewing a player's rating history on the CFC website. I'm not sure about FIDE/USCF.
Bob Armstrong also suggested this but I was a bit confused by his 50 point highest rating calculation.
I agree that TD discretion could lead to considerable debate. It is better to have the rules laid out ahead of time if this is expected to be a problem.

Pierre Dénommée
03-27-2009, 06:11 PM
The FQE has an antisandbagging rules in its Swiss Pairing regulations but is is essentially a cut and paste of what Quebec organisers were putting in their publicity. The rule has been enacted in order to remove the text from all tournament announcements.

Article 1.1 Assigning a rating to an already rated player

The TD has the discretionary power to assign a higher rating to any player registered in a rated event. Here are some commons reasons to assign a higher rating, but this list does not restrict in any way the discretion of the TD.


a) the player has demonstrated a clear superiority over other players of his class;

b) the player has demonstrated a tendency to obtain strong resultd in tournament where there are large cash priced and poor results in tournament in which there is little to gain;

c) the player rating has recently goes under the threshold for a class following recent and statistically very improbable results;

d) the moved played, the words uttered, the time management or any other action of the player in previous competitions have given the TD a reasonable cause to believe the the player has failed to make a reasonable effort to avoid loosing ;

e) the TD has a reasonable cause to believe that the player has deliberatly withdrawn from a previous tournament in order to ensure that his rating will not increase too much. (Formerly, all unplayed games in a FQE rated round roubin were counted as rated forfeits. A player did try to take advantage of this by willfully withdrawing and forfeiting 5 games in a RR just before the Quebec Open. The intent was to be able to play in a lower section.)

Any player who is assigned a higher rating should, whenever possible, be advised before the beginning of the tournament; the player is then entitled to withdraw before the first round. Nevertheless, it is not always possible to advise the player before the first round because the higher rating assignment may be based on facts observed during the tournament.

This article can be applied regardless of the pairing method used (FQE, CFC, FIDE Dutch or FIDE Dubov) and without any requirement that it has been mentioned in the tournament publicity.

Egidijus Zeromskis
03-27-2009, 08:29 PM
Thnx, Pierre.

I have a slightly off topical question but related to dropping ratings.

What is the practice of TDs for players who register in advance for a lower section (lets say U2000) but their rating rises above that? There might be an opposite situation: the player registered as U2200, but his actual rating only 1999 (fits to U2000 section). (I just willing to know, and I have nobody in my mind :p

Kerry Liles
03-27-2009, 08:34 PM
Thnx, Pierre.

I have a slightly off topical question but related to dropping ratings.

What is the practice of TDs for players who register in advance for a lower section (lets say U2000) but their rating rises above that? There might be an opposite situation: the player registered as U2200, but his actual rating only 1999 (fits to U2000 section). (I just willing to know, and I have nobody in my mind :p

But 1999 is below 2200... does that mean such a player cannot play between 2000-2200 or whatever that section really is? "Under 2200" is not a very good description then.

Egidijus Zeromskis
03-27-2009, 09:01 PM
OK, let's say it is section 2200 (2200-2001)

Pierre Dénommée
03-27-2009, 10:50 PM
Thnx, Pierre.

I have a slightly off topical question but related to dropping ratings.

What is the practice of TDs for players who register in advance for a lower section (lets say U2000) but their rating rises above that? There might be an opposite situation: the player registered as U2200, but his actual rating only 1999 (fits to U2000 section). (I just willing to know, and I have nobody in my mind :p

Players whose ratings have gone up must play in the higher section unless the organiser has announced in advance that he will use the (put the date here) rating list. Now that all ratings are online, few organisers will commit to use the paper version of the rating list because the results get online much faster.

Players whose ratings have lowered are usually allowed to play in the lowest section. There should be no paranoia : it is normal for a rating to fluctuate. In Quebec, for most tournaments, players who have achieved a highest rating of more then 100 points above the limits of a section are not allowed to register in the lower section even if their actual rating would permit it.