Is this Fair Play? (It's not cheating, but... is it ethical?)

A friend of mine has recently run up his chess.com rating by aborting his games against higher-rated (or equal) players and fishing for games against lower-rated opponents.

This creates a weird dynamic in which he rises to well over 1600 by winning against an average opponent of 1350 (and losing to an average rating of < 1250?) 

Typically, I find the rating of players to be somewhere between the ratings of the average opponents when they win and the average rating of those they lose to.

I am curious to know what the chess.com community thinks about this. It is clearly allowed. Is it okay though?

Even though this method does not use rating manipulation like sandbagging does, Chess.com will still act upon frequent abortions.

My understanding is that the "action" is that chess.com will remove the "abort" option for five minutes for offending players so they will have to play or resign a game. Thereafter, the method can be reinstated. It's a solid and effective hack.

Players who abort too often will be placed in a separate playing pool with only others with with the same offense, or, if it becomes too common, Chess.com always has the ability to close the account. 

Do you have a source on that? Because that is not what I am seeing.

The problem with this system (temporary removal of the "abort" feature) is that even after Chess.com removes the "abort" option, the player can continue to just not make a move, and particularly for 5 or 10 minute (or longer) games, no opponent is willing to just sit there for 10 or 15 minutes waiting for a move.... THEY abort, and voila... the player is re-paired.

If the goal is to win a game of chess, yes you can use methods such as above to get an advantage of skill against opponents. I find the idea of trying to artificially get a higher rating to be meaningless however, you're still the same skilled player, whatever the number next to your username is. It's pretty easy for someone to look at a player's game history and see that they are abusing the rating system to get an artificially higher rating than their skill, similarly to those who create a username and set themselves at 2000 rating, play a weak player or two a couple games and then act like they are 2000 rated players.

I suppose the question I'd ask is, would your friend be playing rated chess to document their skill level against others here or playing rated chess to get an ego boost by looking better at it than they really are?

-Jordan

Playing only low rated players won't increase your rating, nor will playing only high rated players (the more common misconception). The formula used in the rating system compensates for rating differences. It doesn't just balance out. It balances out exactly.

If your friend aborts too often, they will get paired agisnt other people that like to abort, or otherwise known as the "Bad sports" section. They will also lose the abillity to abort a game.

I dont know why your ferind would do that though, I personally HATE playing agsint lower  rated opponents as they just try to haggle for a draw and play drawing lines.

I do. It's stated by chess.com themselves.

I also agree with @7, if your friend can beat 1300's then its fine, they probally are 1600.

Though.... these lower- rated opponents love draws... ( or at least mine)

(one of them saw my rating and instantly resgined, that's called intimination.)

( I checked their profile. they are ~250 elo lower than me and don't appear to be sandbagging)

In settings, you can choose the minimum and maximum rating of your opponents but it isn't going to boost your rating. 

They don't even have to abort.  They can just choose the rating ranges for there opponents in these settings :

Seems like we said the same thing XD

(normally, I put it as "any")

( that way, more people can accept with me in unrated games)

( though, some people abort when they see my rating )

That's just how many points you gain/loss for the results, but if the results are manipulated by abuse such as player hunting (playing lower rated opponents and beating them over and over), or cheating, then the ratings will become artificially high so long as their win to loss ratio is kept high. This is limited to the skill of their play however because eventually if they can only maintain a high win to loss ratio by playing players 1350 or below, their rating can only go so high before they get so few points for their wins and any losses sets them back to such a degree they aren't able to continue to raise it further over time. As an example, the player in question may eventually find they can't stay above 1700 because their skill level prevents them from playing players higher than 1350 and winning most of the games, so they can't gain enough from the wins to their losses to move higher. This doesn't mean they are skilled as a 1700 rated player though, they could be only 1500 skilled, but through their manipulation of playing such weak players and winning so consistently they've artificially raised their rating 200 points.

-Jordan

SFL, playing only lower rated players will definitely increase your rating, particularly if you focus on significant differences.

If I play only people 200 points lower than me, I'll probably win over 90% or more of those games. And even though I won't gain as many points per game, compared against playing people 200 points higher than me, over time, the constant wins will add up and move my rating higher.

Check out the below. Compare the "average rating when winning" and "average rating when losing" here and tell me if you don't see the most obvious method to hack one's rating here?

That's actually not true. You'll win more games against low rated players but gain less per game. Against high rated players, you'll win less but gain more per game. Glicko adjusts the gain or loss according to the rating difference. It has no other function. It's a sophisticated formula and it works.

Lol a best win streak of 22….

You're missing the point. The rating system only compensates for rating differences for individual results but doesn't account for hot streaks/manipulation of wins to loss ratios. If a player plays 100 games and wins 99/100 of those against players rated 200 points below them their rating is going to be higher than if they played players around their rating and go 50/100 or probably even 60/100. Rating systems can only create a ceiling effect against win to loss ratio manipulation (unless cheating is involved to higher the skill level of the manipulator), it can't prevent it.

-Jordan

Again, not true. You should research Glicko. 

Jordan, I agree, excactly. "Player Hunting" is a really good way to describe it too. 

I guess I'm just old school and ratings were derived from going to tournaments where you were paired by an organizer and you didn't get to say "no. please give me someone weaker so I can make my number thingy bigger."

If "Player Hunting" is actually a thing that is commonplace--something I've not noticed until now--it makes me wonder why I'm even relying on chess.com to pair me with people based on the ratings.

Rating systems do not, let alone only, create a ceiling effect. They adjust your gains and losses according to your opponent's rating.