23327 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Some people are too quick to accuse others of manipulating their rating so as to join tourneys where they have a greater chance of success. My reply to that charge follows.
My rating very briefly hit 2000 in May 2009. Since then I have played thousands of games, moving very quickly without any study of help. I just like have many games on the go and enjoying the action. Consequently my rating has slipped to around 1500. Some say I am sandbagging etc. I am not and my statistics carefully perused prove that assertion.
There are reasons for my rating demise. I am free to resign any game at any time I choose. When to resign is an issue for many players. They play on in dead lost positions. I believe in resigning at the earliest possible opportunity. If I am material down against a higher rated player then I often resign. I respect their ability. Why waste time when the result is inevitable.
Playing in tourneys sometimes clashes with holidays. What is the best thing to do if you cannot play on holiday? Withdraw, resign, lose on time or go on chess.com 'vacation' also? I consider that resigning is the best option.That is what I have had to do twice over the last few years. This may mean resigning games at the starting position.
I now recognise how this may look to some. They jump to the easiest diagnosis of sandbagging or your manipulating your rating for whatever purpose.
I hope that this clarification of my position will help those in chess.com who too quickly and easily detect sandbaggers to rethink their position.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Logic says the whole of life is meaningless, unless you find enjoyment in the moment.
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
by Martin_Stahl a few minutes ago
by Diakonia a few minutes ago
as is the new chess.com?
by Martin_Stahl 2 minutes ago
need to end my membership
by Martin_Stahl 3 minutes ago
2/8/2016 - Neumann-Hernandez Dresden 1969
by snbarkman 3 minutes ago
Somebody explain the rules please
by Martin_Stahl 6 minutes ago
What's the most creative chess puzzle you've ever seen?
by chaotic_iak 7 minutes ago
by UseWithCare 8 minutes ago
St. Louis Chess Club On YouTube
by zinkelburger 9 minutes ago
Abuse Policy of chess.com
by Martin_Stahl 9 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!