Just drew a sandbagger/meltdown opponent

I know there's nothing I can do about it, but I just drew one of the classic sawtooth graph types in a mini-banded duel and I felt the need to vent. The guy's current rating is around 1000 but his tournament rating is just under 1500. His graph is an ongoing series of rapid climbs to around 1600 followed by mass resignations to crash back down below 800.

I asked him what was up with his graph but he didn't answer. My instincts tell me to play slow and just wait for his next meltdown.

Any thoughts on your favorite way to deal with this situation?

Thanks,
Steve

Try to avoid playing such people. That's really the only way to deal with it.

Originally posted by Jasen777
Try to avoid playing such people. That's really the only way to deal with it.

Yeah, I agree. Unfortunately, when you enter a tournie you're stuck with luck of the draw. When the games popped into my inbox and I saw his rating, I thought 'oh no something's odd here' and then I looked at his graph. It's the kind of profile you'd never want to play against if you saw it in an open invite.

The only ones worse are the ones who've played 1,000 games with no losses.

Well, make the best of it, I suppose. I've played this guy before in a tournie and we split, so it's not like he's unbeatable so I'll quit my whining and try to take him out of the next round.

Originally posted by sbacat
I know there's nothing I can do about it, but I just drew one of the classic sawtooth graph types in a mini-banded duel and I felt the need to vent. The guy's current rating is around 1000 but his tournament rating is just under 1500. His graph is an ongoing series of rapid climbs to around 1600 followed by mass resignations to crash back down below 800.

I ...[text shortened]... meltdown.

Any thoughts on your favorite way to deal with this situation?

Thanks,
Steve

Can't say as that would be commenting on games in play. 😛

Both your ratings are well below you bests (they have just fallen further than you) and are fairly similar based on the 100 day high and tournament entry level.

Getting beat is likely to harm your rating more so just make sure you win.

Originally posted by adramforall
Can't say as that would be commenting on games in play. 😛

Both your ratings are well below you bests (they have just fallen further than you) and are fairly similar based on the 100 day high and tournament entry level.

Getting beat is likely to harm your rating more so just make sure you win.

Thanks. Not looking for advice on play and yes, I have my ups and downs too. It's not a David and Goliath thing (although I've had my share of those surprises, too, thank you very much). But I've never done a wholesale resignation of all games. Sometimes it's tempting, but so far I've resisted that urge. 😀

I've been following the thread about sandbagging in the Tychoo situation and this just seemed too much like that all over again to let it pass without comment. Perhaps it's the universe's way of telling me to just shut up already and play.

So, let's see, your advice is that the best recourse is not...to...lose. Hold on, I'm writing that down... 😉

Originally posted by sbacat
I know there's nothing I can do about it, but I just drew one of the classic sawtooth graph types in a mini-banded duel and I felt the need to vent. The guy's current rating is around 1000 but his tournament rating is just under 1500. His graph is an ongoing series of rapid climbs to around 1600 followed by mass resignations to crash back down below 800.

I ...[text shortened]... meltdown.

Any thoughts on your favorite way to deal with this situation?

Thanks,
Steve

There is, however, something the site could do about it...implement rating floors.

Thread 106564

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There is, however, something the site could do about it...implement rating floors.

I like it. But from what I've read in the link you posted, it's proposed as a replacement for the current Tournament Rating. What if it wasn't a replacement but provided as an alternative assessment?

The last thing you want to do when running the site is change something fundamental that might sound good up front, but upsets a bunch of subscribers.

Instead of replacing the current Tournament Rating, what if Russ did the Floor idea provided as an alternative value in a person's profile? It would give player's who cared to look a way of knowing the opponent's true strength, it would help clan leaders match more fairly, and tournaments could be posted in ways that blocked entry by the current rating and a different string of tournies could block entry based on the floor value. Subscribers would vote for which rating method they liked better by entering tournies banded using their preferred system. The unpopular banded tournies die away in favor of the preferred banded tournies.

If Russ implements it and there's a hidden annoyance to it, we could just ignore the value. If it's a great idea, we spread the word and even more people flock to RHP waving their credit cards (at least until the entire world market collapses!) 😉

Think I've just drawn the same guy as you Steve.

Strange graph - lot's of timeouts and inexpicable resignations over a day or two. Being charitable perhaps he just got overwhelmed by too many games, or had to go away.

Does make you feel uncomfortable tho'.

Al

Originally posted by mciala
Think I've just drawn the same guy as you Steve.

Strange graph - lot's of timeouts and inexpicable resignations over a day or two. Being charitable perhaps he just got overwhelmed by too many games, or had to go away.

Does make you feel uncomfortable tho'.

Al

Hi Al,

If you look at his graph the whole way back it's a pattern, not just a once and done kinda thing. Even if it's not done consciously, there is a secondary benefit to mass resignation.

I think my main complaint is that when I enter a banded tournament, I expect everybody in it to be fairly evenly matched and I'm putting my 16 rating points on the line against your 16 points so it's a fair and even wager of skill vs skill for the same compensation. Sandbaggers and meltdown artists screw with that.

Best of luck in your games, Al. Kick his butt.

Steve

Originally posted by sbacat
I like it. But from what I've read in the link you posted, it's proposed as a replacement for the current Tournament Rating. What if it wasn't a replacement but provided as an alternative assessment?

The last thing you want to do when running the site is change something fundamental that might sound good up front, but upsets a bunch of subscribers.

Inst to RHP waving their credit cards (at least until the entire world market collapses!) 😉

There are already plenty of subscribers upset over sandbagging. The tournament entry rating has been in place for some time and it has failed to solve the problem. We keep hearing of formerly high-rated players returning with a ridiculously low rating and terrorizing the low-band tourneys.

TER also does nothing to stop sandbagging in other forms of rated competition, like clan play, and open invites. Most players in general don't want a rated game against an opponent they know to be hundreds of points underrated.

Rating floors as a mere assessment would completely defeat the purpose of having them. Why let established players lose 800 points? Why not fix the problem for all forms of rated play?

As for voting, the response to the rating floor proposal has been overwhelmingly positive. This has been talked about over several months and several threads, and all indications are that the RHP membership is ready for them to be implemented as soon as possible.

Edit: I would also point out that the US Chess Federation has used floors for years - they have a proven track record.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There are already plenty of subscribers upset over sandbagging. The tournament entry rating has been in place for some time and it has failed to solve the problem. We keep hearing of formerly high-rated players returning with a ridiculously low rating and terrorizing the low-band tourneys.

TER also does nothing to stop sandbagging in other forms of ra ...[text shortened]... t out that the US Chess Federation has used floors for years - they have a proven track record.

Well, you've talked me into it, but then I'm easy (ask anybody who's played me). Since it hasn't happened can we conclude that there is a compelling reason given not to do it?

Originally posted by sbacat
Well, you've talked me into it, but then I'm easy (ask anybody who's played me). Since it hasn't happened can we conclude that there is a compelling reason given [b]not to do it?[/b]

The site owner here is slow to implement changes in general, even when lots of players want them. Case in point: Conditional moves took ages [at least several months; maybe over a year, I forget the exact amount of time it took].

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The site owner here is slow to implement changes in general, even when lots of players want them. Case in point: Conditional moves took ages [at least several months; maybe over a year, I forget the exact amount of time it took].

Then hope is indicated, yes? Slow doesn't mean won't happen, just may not happen soon.

I am far better off than these poor unfortunates who frequently crash and burn and thrash about because they cannot tolerate the loss of a few relatively meaningless chess games. All I have to do is tolerate the occasional less than ideal pairing. The other poor fellows have to wake up inside their own skins each and every day and that does not seem a pleasant thing at all.

Life can be good but we must choose to make it so. Abraham Lincoln said that most people are as happy or as sad as they decide to be.

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation of the floor concept. I sincerely hope it comes to pass very soon. I feel better knowing that it is in the works.

Best,
Steve

Originally posted by SwissGambit
There are already plenty of subscribers upset over sandbagging. The tournament entry rating has been in place for some time and it has failed to solve the problem. We keep hearing of formerly high-rated players returning with a ridiculously low rating and terrorizing the low-band tourneys.

TER also does nothing to stop sandbagging in other forms of ra ...[text shortened]... t out that the US Chess Federation has used floors for years - they have a proven track record.

USCF rating floors are a different matter. For OTB games, you play one game at a time, and you invest travel and solid chucks of time to actually play. Whatever purpose rating floors have in the USCF, they are not there to combat players resigning 100s of games in a row.
Who would pay real money in entry fees, waste weekend after weekend just to resign over and over?

RHP is different in that there is no game limit, so it cost the perpetrator nothing to take on hundreds of games and let them all time out.

One downside of a rating floor is that a player can become a "points fiat". They sit on their rating floor and lose game after game offering up free points. Then they decide to start playing again and they haven't lost the points they gave away. So there will be the potential to have "rating inflation".

If the players rating falls when the resign 100s of games, the points given away diminishes after 20 or so losses. And when that person decides to play for real again, he on average takes all the points back from the pool. As it is, if I pick up X points from a win, someone is losing X points in a loss. Balance. With rating floors, I could pick up X points for a win, but no one is losing any points for a loss. Inflation.

Personally, I don't prefer playing a sandbagger. But I may lose extra points against them, but I've also got my share of free points when the sandbaggers are in the time-out mode. It balances out.

Originally posted by techsouth
USCF rating floors are a different matter. For OTB games, you play one game at a time, and you invest travel and solid chucks of time to actually play. Whatever purpose rating floors have in the USCF, they are not there to combat players resigning 100s of games in a row.
Who would pay real money in entry fees, waste weekend after weekend just to resign ...[text shortened]... my share of free points when the sandbaggers are in the time-out mode. It balances out.

USCF rating floors are a different matter. For OTB games, you play one game at a time, and you invest travel and solid chucks of time to actually play. Whatever purpose rating floors have in the USCF, they are not there to combat players resigning 100s of games in a row.

On the contrary, that's exactly what their purpose is.

Who would pay real money in entry fees, waste weekend after weekend just to resign over and over?

There are tourneys with U1400, U1600, etc. sections with first prizes in the thousands of dollars. There is clear incentive to tank the rating to win those. [And they hardly need weekends or entry dollars - just someone with a club TD certification.]

One downside of a rating floor is that a player can become a "points fiat". They sit on their rating floor and lose game after game offering up free points. Then they decide to start playing again and they haven't lost the points they gave away. So there will be the potential to have "rating inflation".

I'm really not seeing the problem with this small bit of inflation. Consider a new player with a provisional rating. He can lose to several 2000 players, and be rated 1600. Meanwhile, if the same newbie had instead lost to several 1200 players, he would have been rated 800. There's 800 points of inflation for ya, and yet the system somehow survives.

Personally, I don't prefer playing a sandbagger. But I may lose extra points against them, but I've also got my share of free points when the sandbaggers are in the time-out mode. It balances out.

However, there is no way to 'balance out' the tourney victories of sandbaggers.