We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by Arshad Ali » Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:52 pm

Odds are the funding won't be secured. They will need at least 1300 participants to break even (maybe more). They won't find 1300 chumps to participate: $1,000 + airfare + lodging + food will set even those living in the USA back at least $2,000. The prizes in the open section will all be vacuumed up by foreign players so no American in his right mind will enter that section if he can avoid it. In the language of probability the "expected value" of the $2,000+ investment will be a fraction of $2,000 for a regular player.

Ashley just doesn't learn.

NickFaulks
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by NickFaulks » Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:37 pm

I just spoke to Franc Guadaloupe, the Chief Arbiter. He referred me to

http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12614/760/

which confirms that the event is going ahead, even if it locks in a loss. The sponsor will live with that. If you thought it was definite before April 7th you were wrong, but it is now.

EDIT I'm just passing on information received!
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by Joey Stewart » Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:55 am

That sort of money would tempt even 2700s away from their ivory towers of "playing conditions" and "expenses" that they are probably used to. I would also not be surprised if it tempts some unscrupulous us players to find elaborate schemes to cheat and win.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 4211
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:55 am

"I would also not be surprised if it tempts some unscrupulous us players to find elaborate schemes to cheat and win."

And some people who play surprisingly well compared to their ratings will turn up.

Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by Arshad Ali » Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:32 pm

Kevin Thurlow wrote:And some people who play surprisingly well compared to their ratings will turn up.
Other than vanity, there's no incentive to have a high rating. I expect the winner of the U1400 section to have a playing strength of 1800, the winner of the U1600 section to have a strength of 2000 (or maybe even more) and so on. I've seen this both in the United States and in Britain (i.e., players systematically losing games that don't matter from a prize point of view).

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1095
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:45 pm

Arshad Ali wrote: I've seen this both in the United States and in Britain (i.e., players systematically losing games that don't matter from a prize point of view).
Could you point to some example of this happening in ECF graded games?
The ECF grading database lets you show players' game history, so pointing to someone you noticed must be very easy. This is for instance a link to your games from 2013: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/ecfgradi ... ef=245797A (just an example how to link to players' games)

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4144
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:04 pm

Arshad Ali wrote: Other than vanity, there's no incentive to have a high rating.
This is not quite true: once you get up to 2300, you start being eligible for meaningful FIDE playing titles, and this in turn can get you cheaper entry fees to tournaments. Also, the higher your rating, the more likely it is you will be invited to title-norm all-play-alls.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19271
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:48 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote: This is not quite true: once you get up to 2300, you start being eligible for meaningful FIDE playing titles, and this in turn can get you cheaper entry fees to tournaments.
Not just for titled players. Last year's London Classic Open was free for IM/GM/WIM/WGM and then, excluding the early entry discount, £ 100, £ 125, £150 respectively for over 2200, under 2200 and unrated.

Hastings as well was free for IMs etc. with £ 26 for FM/WFM, then £ 70/ £110 for rated players above or below 2100. For unrated players it could depend on the ECF grade, so £120 above 190 and £ 140 below.

A common feature of both Congresses was that if you didn't want to participate in that Entry Fee system, was that there were alternatives on different but parallel schedules. The interaction of the pairing system usually means that in the early rounds you never play anyone who paid the same entry fee.

Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by Arshad Ali » Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:20 pm

Paolo Casaschi wrote:
Arshad Ali wrote: I've seen this both in the United States and in Britain (i.e., players systematically losing games that don't matter from a prize point of view).
Could you point to some example of this happening in ECF graded games?
The ECF grading database lets you show players' game history, so pointing to someone you noticed must be very easy. This is for instance a link to your games from 2013: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/ecfgradi ... ef=245797A (just an example how to link to players' games)
Someone else with my name. I live in the US. But I have seen English players lose rated games, which I suspect was deliberate -- I can't prove it.

Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by Arshad Ali » Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:22 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Arshad Ali wrote: Other than vanity, there's no incentive to have a high rating.
This is not quite true: once you get up to 2300, you start being eligible for meaningful FIDE playing titles, and this in turn can get you cheaper entry fees to tournaments. Also, the higher your rating, the more likely it is you will be invited to title-norm all-play-alls.
Right you are -- but even then the prizes on offer at US Opens dwarf these benefits. I remember a Serbian master once grumbling that he shouldn't have revealed his playing strength but entered the unrated section at a major US Open and won the $10,000 first prize, then done it again for the next section up the subsequent year.

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1095
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:28 pm

Arshad Ali wrote:
Paolo Casaschi wrote:
Arshad Ali wrote: I've seen this both in the United States and in Britain (i.e., players systematically losing games that don't matter from a prize point of view).
Could you point to some example of this happening in ECF graded games?
The ECF grading database lets you show players' game history, so pointing to someone you noticed must be very easy. This is for instance a link to your games from 2013: http://www.englishchess.org.uk/ecfgradi ... ef=245797A (just an example how to link to players' games)
Someone else with my name. I live in the US. But I have seen English players lose rated games, which I suspect was deliberate -- I can't prove it.
I guess so. Still, I find that people that are quick making such allegations very rarely follow with examples.
I did not ask you to prove anything, just to show which players and events made you so sure about sandbagging.

Arshad Ali
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:27 pm

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by Arshad Ali » Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:56 pm

Paolo Casaschi wrote: I guess so. Still, I find that people that are quick making such allegations very rarely follow with examples.
I did not ask you to prove anything, just to show which players and events made you so sure about sandbagging.
I have names but do you expect me to put them down on a public forum like this? These are players fairly well known on the London circuit -- e.g., the Saturday tournaments Adam Raoof runs in Golders Green.

NickFaulks
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by NickFaulks » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:00 pm

In the 1970's I played for a while in U160 weekenders, and the same player was always to be found on or near top board. He was worth about 170, kept a scrupulous record of his results and at the end of each season did what was necessary to finish with a rating of 158/9. He did this for years, and was quite open about it, but nobody seemed to mind.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

User avatar
Paolo Casaschi
Posts: 1095
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by Paolo Casaschi » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:09 pm

Arshad Ali wrote:
Paolo Casaschi wrote: I guess so. Still, I find that people that are quick making such allegations very rarely follow with examples.
I did not ask you to prove anything, just to show which players and events made you so sure about sandbagging.
I have names but do you expect me to put them down on a public forum like this? These are players fairly well known on the London circuit -- e.g., the Saturday tournaments Adam Raoof runs in Golders Green.
Then why mentioning it at all of you do not want to show any example?
The list of rated games are public and anyone can have their opinion.
It reminds me of a discussion on another forum where someone complained about a large number of games on the freechess.org forum being played cheating with computers... but despite all their games being logged online I could not have a link to any actual game with evidence of computer cheating.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 3585
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: We're goin' to Vegas!!!

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:37 pm

I too have heard quite a few rumours about "sandbaggers" - but AFAICS that it all they are, rumours.

(and it is quite possible for players to be genuinely erratic in their play - both highs and lows)
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Post Reply