multiple profiles on the one account?

artfizz jokes, but there is wisdom there.

Basically, when do you stop needing an alternative? At one point you may say, well this style is proving quite good, but I don't want to sully it with another innovation I'm tempted by. So I'll just use the same rationale for the next (and the next).

I guess the best way to look at it is that the Federations don't allow multiple ratings, so in the same spirit, we should see this echoed here.

Also... how is it "risky" if you put nothing at risk? (rhetorical - no need to answer)

Chess.com could have several "universes".  Each would be completely independant of each other, but the same player could have an account in each "universe".  It would also be much easier to program than dealing with policing profiles.

Yeah! How about this: they could rename it Ultima Chess.com and each of those "universes" would be called a "shard"?

(Just kidding with you, flamencowizard)

 And you would naturally make a different move at same position in the corresponding game in each multiverse.

lol@writch

I understand the plight of the poster, but the solution is to have an account on another site.  I have one on yahoo that I use when I want to try new oppenings or if I am just tired and dont want my games to count against my chess.com rating.  I don't think the original idea offered would work.

Another way of implementing this would be to have a setting that could be selected at the outset of the game only - (somewhat along the lines of the Extended Personal Profile) :

Playing Attitude { Tick one }

( ) Desperate to win at all costs

(X) Social player

( ) Half drunk

and Rating Deviation would get adjusted automatically.

Have those options in live chess as well!

Agreed.  Yahoo is my drunk-chess site of choice, or if I'm playing at 3am and I know that I wouldn't be doing my rating any favors by playing here. 

That being said, I was playing on Yahoo the other day and in the middle of a game the game client popped up with a survey.  I immediately clicked the "No, I don't want to take your stupid survey cause this is blitz chess" option, but something screwy happened with the interface and I lost the ability to move any of my pieces (and I was winning). 

Just know what you're in for if you do go the Yahoo route...  Although, I know full & well that they are a terrible chess site (since they aren't really a chess site at all) and that's probably why I don't care at all about my rating there.

I must admit, the concept is intriguing. I think a possible reason that this may not be allowed is, is because of maybe playing against yourself and having your rating going up. I may be wrong here, but that is just my thought process.

 To avoid any suggestion of impropriety (or sobriety), better to have the option system detected.

IMO, the online rating is useful only for finding appropriate chess opponents.  It has no real value beyond that purpose because:

1) Internet chess relies heavily on the honor system to prevent cheating.  Unfortunately, there are many people who are not honest.  Cheating at internet chess is difficult to prove.  A few get caught and kicked out, but how many don't?

2) Players are allowed to pick and choose who they play.  This can skew a rating if a player is selective about choosing opponents.

For a rating to have integrity, players need to compete in a setting where it is very difficult to cheat, and where their opponents are chosen by a neutral person using an established system. 

My point is, since by definition a rating earned on an internet site lacks credibility in the real world, why worry about protecting it?  This is especially true when competitors can play anonymously.   If you want to impress someone with your chess rating, earn an official F.I.D.E. or national organization rating by playing in sanctioned tournaments.  Then play on chess.com to have fun or to try out new ideas.

Just be daring. In rated, online games on your current profile. You may surprise yourself. 

Well since you obviously missed the point of my sarcastic albeit insightful post let me spell it out for you....

Your primary stated reason for wanting this change is that you want to experiment without putting your rating (which you've worked very hard to obtain) at risk.  My question is, who cares about your rating?  What is more important to you: your rating or improving your chess?  If you want to play without opening books or databases sure your rating will probably suffer, but eventually it will increase again and your chess will be much stronger.  If all you care about is having a cool rating then I think you care too much about your rating.  Considering that your average opponent rating is 350 points lower than your own, I would opine that your current rating doesn't reflect your true skill level anyway. 

While I realize that not all users are utilizing this site in the way that I am, here's my thoughts.

• Seems like an awful lot of work for Erik & Co to do, with not a gigantic benefit.
• For me, the primary purpose of my chess usage of this site is to improve my OTB chess. Therefore I'm not likely to practice finding openings which "work well" in correspondence chess. I'm going to refine my opening knowledge in the openings I play OTB. If it helps or hurts my online rating, that's ok. Tactics trainer is similar. I'm going to utilize it to train my calculation abilities, not try to figure out the best way to get a sky high rating.

For what it's worth, I don't think your comment was particularly insightful. It didn't attempt to figure out why the user was asking what they were asking, and it didn't try to put yourself in their shoes.

EDIT: I think it's a rare comment which is both sarcastic and insightful.

I don't think my comment was particularly insightful either.  He's the one who said that.... :) I also didn't think the question was particularly insightful, which is why I didn't bother with an insightful answer.  FWIW, it did address the main reason for the suggestion, which is a desire not to risk the cool rating.....

Thanks ozzie, and just to clarify I don't want to protect my rating to look cool or impress people but as another poster pointed out because certain tournaments require a minimum rating. Kingwraith my sarcastic response was a bit over the top, I just didn't think you really tried to understand my motivation and I wasn't trying to be insightful just making a suggestion and seeing what people thought. The responses have generally been negative which is kind of what I expected but I'm not sure if anyone has really come up with reasons as to why it couldn't work in theory.

I thought there were at  least a few fair reasons posted why it wasn't such a good idea.

Sure it may work in theory, but work to what ends? To protect your rating to get just to get into tournaments? Why not just work to improve your overall game with the combined rating it entails and therefore you will perform stronger in said tournaments?

See if you truly had your ratings to protect, there's an investment in the game. If not than it is disposable attention: you tend to just make discounted moves thinking 'oh well it won't matter anyway.'

I think one's game is edgier (at least it is in mine) when there's "skin in the game" and you feel all the better for the victory.

Just my humble opinion.

True Writch, there were some reasons posted, I'm just not sure I was convinced. WhiteKnight56 suggested that others would be disadvantaged by not knowing your true rating, however this occurs whenever a new player starts and is more a quirk of the rating system than a problem in this example. I'd also argue that if I play without analysis/opening books then my rating for this type of play would be true.

Artfizz pointed out that once a second profile built up a rating you would need another profile to protect that rating but if you remained true to the original intention of the second profile then it would be fine.

Professor Evil suggested that playing one profile against another could artificially boost a rating, however I had already said that this would of course not be allowed.

Ozzie_c_cobblepot suggested that the effort to create such a system would greatly outweigh any benefits and this may well be true, I'm not a programmer and don't know how hard it would be. However a number of people have said they go to other sites to deal with this problem and so I would suggest that there might actually be a demand for this type of service and if the demand is great enough it might be worthwhile for the owners to implement it (if it stops people going to other sites).