Chess.com, please fix your arena kings format

Yeah, and I don't even play that stuff, I'm just trying to explain what people are saying.

This is the other angering thing

12 games, I got 10 higher rated players and they averaged about 150 points above my rating.

FIX YOUR ARENAS!

git gud

On the bright side...

You get could learning experiences by playing these strong players

I lost about 50 points in an arena paired with higher rated players... we both had equal chances in the games. For example I was just having an extremely off day. 

ry, I pointed this out two years ago (others propably did, too). Chess.com wants to make money and good chess players are rare. So attracting as many people as possible is of course the best business strategy. Tournaments like PogChamps and Arena Kings where "bad" players can win prizes are clearly part of that strategy.

i just googled this thread because i was puzzled while watching Eric Hansen's youtube video... how is it possible that below 1000-rated player was on second place? And i think this system is totaly cool idea. I am going to play, too. You see? The possibility to win motivates lower rated players. And when you play tournament, you try hardest, ok? Which is i quess good for your game and learning. And ultimately for promoting chess as a game. By the way, rychessmaster, you should never win too, if you wish best player should win. Because with that reasoning, Hikaru or Firouzja would win all the time, cause they play very often. I think THAT would be anoyingly predictable and not fun at all.

"best player wins" doesn't mean Hikaru or Firouzja win all the time but whoever is the best player on a given day. And that will never be a 1000 rated player.

"And ultimately for promoting chess as a game." No game becomes popular if bad players can place above good players without ever facing decent opposition. Imagine a Football World Cup where Liechtenstein wins 3rd place because they get to play San Marino and Malta while Brazil is kicked out in group stages because they have to play Germany, France and Argentina.

yes they are rewarding using smurf accounts and artificially lowering your elo. In both cases nothing can be done from chess.com. And even in the case of a normal player it is still dumb that if you are the 1st on the leaderboard you get paired with people on the lower third jsut because of your rating.

yes, pairing based on points scored in the tournament.  chess.com could do that. It would immediately fix the issue. They deliberately make the tournaments such that players with low rating can win. Which does reward smurfing to extreme proportions. If paired based on points scored in the tournament, smurfing loses its value after one or two games because you get paired with other people who scored well. 

nothing wrong with arenakings : my favorite format & also inagurated on my bday so its special

Doesn't make it any less bad of a format...

You are rewarding having a low rating in comparison to abilities. Those will be the people that win the arena's.

It's rewarding people who play well for their rating. If people are artifically lowering their rating so as to get more favourable pairings in Arena tournaments, that's sandbagging and a fair play violation and their account will be closed. Simple.

Simple is it?  I don't know. I just see the dynamics as they play out. rather then seeing it as simple from an abstract point of view and refusing to look at all the obvious evidence..

I just played a bullet 1 0 tournament. Which was won by a player that started with a rating of 100 and ended with a rating of 1087. 21 straight wins in a row. And I understand. You can call it what ever you like. But  if you reward low ratings then people will have low ratings. That is how rewards are supposed to work. Calling that "artificial" is an arbitrary judgement.

Rating is like money. Suppose you make a rule that people can only buy lots of stuff if they have little money. So as to be fair ey? Poor people need to eat too! How do you think that will work out?

Report them and when Chess.com identifies them as a sandbagger that's artifically lowered their rating to 100, they'll be banned. Cheaters get caught, just not instantly - it's just not possible.  Worrying about it makes you see phantoms under every bed.

I don't mind. I play the arena's as they are. There is also the occasional "swiss" variant which is more in line with proper tournaments  Why would I want to report someone. I don't see the need to do that. Chess is made by rules. Not by arbitrary judgements. 

Reporting something that seems suspicious to you helps Chess.com identify people breaking the rules - they don't rely on these reports, but they can point out something that they haven't gotten to yet and perhaps accelerate the process. You can't define a system that adequately covers all possibilities, and if that's what you expect then you're going to be disappointed - not very realistic, but disappointed anyway.

And yet you won't report someone breaking the rules so that the site can be improved? That seems a little inconsistent to me.