Blank

[COMMENT DELETED]

No offense, but why does it even matter?

A good 50% are using engines randomly. The other are playing correspondence games like they are playing blitz games, I suspect using smartphones. Another 30% have multiple accounts.

That you sandbag or not, there is no money involved, so I don't believe it matters.

The rating here is not recognized by anyone in the world. If it was a real federation, like the USCF, they would put floors, so if you reached 2000, you cannot magically go back to 1500, and win a tournament.

But let's for a moment theorize that you reach 2700 here. Is there anyone giving you a GM title? Will your name be listed in the first 100 players on the planet? The answer is no.

Here chess is only a game, not a sport, like when played OTB.

I feel it's necessary to quote the OP, so the original does not get deleted and people dont know what the discussion is about...

Some issues about resigning from the start position in tournaments:

There may be some merit if it is a no vacation tourney. But, no vacation tourneys normally fill up quite fast, and complete fairly quickly. If vacation is allowed, just take your vacation. that happens twice a year, if you're lucky enough to have time and money to do that?

If you are one of those few who take vacation twice a month, just be considerate of other players and don't enter tournaments.

deliberately sandbagging your rating can get your account close so it does matter here.

Maybe chess players are weird, but I can't understand why anybody would get any satisfaction out of winning tournaments rated way below their abilities.

Hey everyone can have an opinion, but maybe if you quote the rule written by chess.com we can see if what you say it is true.

Evidently cannot be true, because if someone plays 10 games against computer impossible, he/she is going to lose a lot of points, but I didn't see anyone account closed for that.

Maybe you misunderstood that chess.com doesn't want people to open multiple accounts to change their ratings, playing against themselves.

Here is what Mr. Bobby Ang respected chess columnist, phil. chess organizer, former member of the PCF and former second of GM Eugene Torre and Gm R. Antonio had to say about the ratings: This is taken from his Business World chess column  dated Dec. 20, 2012.:

"The ELO rating system is not purely a grading system for players -- it is more of a numerical system in which differences in rating may be converted into scoring or winning probabilities. For example, if you are rated 2600 and I am 2540, the fact that you are 60 points higher than me (the difference between our ratings) is more significant than the fact that you are in the 2600-rating plateau. With a 60-point difference, if we play 100 games you are probably going to win 58 times and lose 42 games. I have this on the authority of Prof. Elmer Sangalang, a worldwide authority on the rating system -- he was the editor of Dr. Arpad Elo when he wrote the definitive book on The Rating of Chessplayers."

Some of the time, a player may have come back after a long period of absense from chess.com, so when I first signed up for a tournament, my rating did not accurately reflect my ability, but I had no way of knowing this. I don't know how true this is for other people, though.

I think you're free to give life meaning, since a meaning is not there to begin with. 

Geez, that's a heavy thing to lay on me 1st thing on a saturday morning....

When ya' think about it, "meaning" must have something to do with "expressing". Like saying, "what does that painting mean?", or "what does that painting want to say?". So to say "life is meaningless", is like saying, "life doesn't express anything". But, like rmurray wrote above, each of our lives says something to someone else if you are interested in communicating to someone, and someone wants you to express yourself to them. So life in general may mean nothing at all, because meaning is an intimate, personal idea.

@ rooperi: Sorry, it's 1:15 am where I live, so it's still Friday night

@rmurray: I guess I was writing when you were posting. Nice to meet you, and thank you for sparking the thinking tonight!

It's funny how many "coincidences" have happened in life right at the moment that I would need them to happen, or provoke a thought sequence that was beneficial in some way. About the Dhali Llama statement, I believe that, as I'm not anywhere near rich, and I'm as happy as anyone can possibly be. I see many rich people, who, theoretically, should be as happy as pie, but constantly are scowling, and visibly unhappy. I don't get that. I think life should be about happiness to a great extent, or why would you want to move around on this rock, and interact with people? 

That's one of the worst parts about the U.S. for me. Almost every person you meet has some kind of programming or something, which makes them feel that financial wealth equates to self-satisfaction and success. 

@rmurray: Yes, I have heard that cd, "Graceland", but I don't recall the lyrics so much as the African influence. I'll watch it this week. Thanks for the recommendation