Did this guy take me seriously?

Sort:
alphaous
alphaous wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
alphaous wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
alphaous wrote:
alphaous wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
alphaous wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
alphaous wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
alphaous wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
lst931207 wrote:

My guess is that might not be the same player, might be one of the student playing against. You never know. Probably check the game he won against stronger players.

in a rated game that should be against TOS.

Which is probably why he plays so much unrated.

makes sense lol  But I still think it should be against TOS.   I mean the whole reason I'm against speedruns is not necessarily because of rating points,  but because of duping people out of competitive matches which is what they are signing up for.  And you can't blame people for being angry about it.

It is rare for a person to play against multiple speedrunners, so I don't think streamers are duping many people out of competitive matches. It really depends on how you look at it. Unrated is where you go to play without the risk of losing rating points. If someone wants to let his little brother play and you are against that, then realize that he wouldn't get away with it in rated, and you should probably stay there for a consistent challenge. Plus, since so few people play unrated, you will get a vast rating variation.

Because its not just the streamers  that are playing on multiple accounts.  They are leading by example.

Everyone else knows they can't do it without permission, so if they open another account, then either they don't know the rules, or they are dishonest. If the player I played was manipulating his rating, then he belongs to the second category.

They are dishonest,  but the streamers being sanctioned to do it officially,  are encouraging that dishonesty.  its considered fun and has become fashionable and this is the site to do it on.

But if you think about the concept of streamer speedruns, they are, by themselves, beneficial in my opinion. Lower rated players get to play a higher level player without losing rating points and learn from them (unless it's a speedrun with a catch), and it brings fun entertainment. When higher rated players make another account without authorization, then that's when people get cheated. That's why 'smurfing' isn't so bad in unrated, because you can challenge lower rated players without them being cheated. Once you cross the line and break the guidelines set in place, then it's on you.

And to be honest, if you want to continue with this subject, then this is the thread for you:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-are-speedruns-even-allowed?page=16#last_comment

 

SOrry bud,  but its the root of exacerbating alot of problems on this site.  Relates to many things.

I really don't understand what you are saying, and as it doesn't seem relevant to the topic, I politely suggest you go to the other thread, because I honestly think you have more to say on the subject than I do.

Its ironic that you have stated rating manipulation is a problem in this very thread,  yet you don't want to admit that speedrunning encourages it.  now you are hoping the thread gets locked.  interesting.

I don't want this thread to get locked, but the things you were saying seem to suggest that YOU don't care. I didn't make a broad statement about rating manipulation, I just admitted that my opponent might have done it. YOU made a statement about speedrunning that I disagreed with, even if I thought your argument had merit. I was merely engaging in friendly conversation, but you continued to express your thoughts, making it close to a debate about a subject that was not the point of the thread! I was asking for thoughts about a match I played with a higher rated opponent, but you apparently wanted to talk more in-depth about speedrunning, which is why I gave you a link to a thread made to talk about speedrunning, and it has a lot of opinions which i thought you would appreciate. I was honestly trying to be helpful, as I think your thoughts, which I honestly thought interesting, would be more appreciated over there. You then proceeded to say some random nonsense which is definitely not relevant. There is no merit left in this conversation, so if you want to continue talking about speedrunning, please go to the other thread.

And for the record, you cannot accuse me of wanting to get this thread locked when you have had two threads locked before anyone could respond!

alphaous
llama47 wrote:
ScatteredWealth wrote:

No, it's just because your opponent played 41655 bullet games to get to that rating. Generally the more games you play the higher your peak rating will be.

https://www.chess.com/games/archive/joy5555?gameOwner=other_game&gameType=live&gameTypeslive%5B%5D=bullet&rated=rated&timeSort=desc&page=3

Yeah, that was the weirdest string of games I have ever seen. And if you look at his unrated games yesterday, then you see that he was not playing at the level of a 2000.

alphaous

I looked at his account one more time, and have come to this conclusion (NOTE THAT THIS IS ONLY A HYPOTHESIS): This account was made by a weak player, who let a strong player (let's say older brother) play games on his account for while. Well, his brother played rated games and catapulted his rating rather quickly to 2000. Now the little brother is left with a problem: he doesn't want to lose all those nice rating points, but he still wants to play some chess. So he decides to play only unrated until he can become strong enough to stay at 2000. He has been trying this for years now, and occasionally plays a rated game to test his strength, and gets promptly destroyed. He licks his wounds and tries again, and sometimes he beats strong players and sometimes loses to weak players. I was somewhat of an anomaly, as I have a stronger rating on other time controls. I have no explanation for the 3 move wins against an account that was promptly closed, nor other strange and downright suspicious games on his account, but this is the best explanation I can give that would cover the varying strength of his games, and why he has such a strong rating.

alphaous
CooloutAC wrote:
alphaous wrote:

I looked at his account one more time, and have come to this conclusion (NOTE THAT THIS IS ONLY A HYPOTHESIS): This account was made by a weak player, who let a strong player (let's say older brother) play games on his account for while. Well, his brother played rated games and catapulted his rating rather quickly to 2000. Now the little brother is left with a problem: he doesn't want to lose all those nice rating points, but he still wants to play some chess. So he decides to play only unrated until he can become strong enough to stay at 2000. He has been trying this for years now, and occasionally plays a rated game to test his strength, and gets promptly destroyed. He licks his wounds and tries again, and sometimes he beats strong players and sometimes loses to weak players. I was somewhat of an anomaly, as I have a stronger rating on other time controls. I have no explanation for the 3 move wins against an account that was promptly closed, nor other strange and downright suspicious games on his account, but this is the best explanation I can give that would cover the varying strength of his games, and why he has such a strong rating.

Thats against TOS,  its as simple as that. And for good reason., people come here for competitive matches,  they are not here to noob stomp.

You again? 

Goyael

@alphaous You changed your profile picture

alphaous

I know. It's the final position of this game:

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/22437576813

 

Goyael

I have a game winning with 1 king, 1 knight, and a pawn which didn't promote and I was white maybe.

Goyael

@CooloutAC even you changed your profile picture

alphaous
Goyael wrote:

@CooloutAC even you changed your profile picture

Not by much. He hasn't changed his attitude it appears, from what I've seen in other threads.

Goyael

oh

MayonnaiseTicTac_612
llama47 wrote:

Then they're idiots.

Woooah, that's harsh!

alphaous
ChesswithNickolay wrote:
alphaous wrote:

Yesterday I accepted an unrated 1 min game from a 2000 rated bullet player. I am 1500 blitz and 1000 rated bullet. I expected to get destroyed and maybe learn something, but to my shock, I won four out of our five games! I was ahead on time for most of the games, but I didn't just win on time, in most of the games I was dominating! So am I a secret prodigy, Is he overrated, or was he messing around since it was unrated?

It is not chess, it is a chess variant. If you are excited about this go slap yourself in the face with a fly swatter and comeback.

1. It has the same rules as regular chess, and you saying it's not chess won't change that. 

2. Am I not allowed to get excited about beating someone vastly higher rated than me four times without you suggesting that I dirty my face with a fly swatter?

3. You apparently didn't read the thread, because after me and some Chess.com detectives surveyed his account, we agreed that it looked suspicious, thus my hypothesis on post #124. So I am not even that excited anymore.

4. You have played far more bullet games than me, so who are you to tell me not to get excited?

sleepingpuppy

2/1 is now a variant good to know

alphaous
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

1. Yes, but because players have almost no time to think, bullet is a chess variant.

2. Yes, you are not. Just because you beat some higher rated player in a variant, doesn't make you good at chess. Even if you want to be good at the variant, just because you beat someone higher rated than you doesn't make you as good as a 2000 rated player.

3. I did read the thread, but I just wanted to point out that regardless this is irrelevant.

4. I don't understand what you mean???

Technically, I am much better than you in chess.

 

1.  I guess it's a matter of opinion. I don't think it's very meaningful, but I don't think it should be called a variant. At the same time, it does not really have the same necessary skills as regular chess.

2. I can, and my question was rhetorical. Whether you think I should not be getting too excited is a different story, and by all means up for debate, and I probably should not. And nowhere did I claim to be 2000 strength.

3. If you read the thread, then you know that I asked a question that has mostly been answered. I respectfully disagree with you on the relevance of this topic.

4. If you think bullet isn't chess, why have you played 1400 games of it?

I know you are better at chess, that's not a question, but it's also not the point.

Goyael

STOP 

all of you are hurting my braincells

alphaous

Why? We are talking in a quite civilized fashion. 

alphaous

It's not like we are saying confusing things. This conversation is quite to the point.

Goyael

Y'all are talking about things I don't understand

ninjaswat
ChesswithNickolay wrote:

1. Yes, but because players have almost no time to think, bullet is a chess variant.

2. Yes, you are not. Just because you beat some higher rated player in a variant, doesn't make you good at chess. Even if you want to be good at the variant, just because you beat someone higher rated than you doesn't make you as good as a 2000 rated player.

3. I did read the thread, but I just wanted to point out that regardless this is irrelevant.

4. I don't understand what you mean???

Technically, I am much better than you in chess.

 

  1. Some of my bullet games are better than my blitz games (and yours).
  2. The OP never said that, they were pointing out an irregularity.
  3. It seems like you haven't understood the topic this thread is designed to fill and seem to want to deviate from that.
  4. You have played 1400+ games of a "chess variant" and others have played 1000s more. Does that make it a variant at all if everyone plays it?

Technically, I am better than you in chess.

Rating does not equal superiority.

ninjaswat
Goyael wrote:

Y'all are talking about things I don't understand

Then either take the time to understand or accept that you will not understand the discussion at hand.

I, for one, wish nickolay would keep this whole "bullet isn't chess" nonsense out of the discussion.