Underrated or cheating 1100-1400 players

I take it that was a jab at me. Fair enough. I will concede that chess is a huge ego game; I learned that playing OTB. But I will disagree that I'm averse to playing online because of my own ego. I enjoy thinking over my position, so I play long time controls. I just feel it was a waste of my time to play a computer. And there are certainly way better things to do to improve your game than to play online, particularly blitz or bullet.

One last thing I will say is that these perfect or near perfect games disappear OTB. Especially at the class level.

over the board

Or maybe he used to be like a 1600

That aint 1600 level play. It'd be suspicious for a 2000 in a rapid game. Plus that wouldn't explain resigning on move 0 twice in a row (plus move 1 and 3)

After proper engine analysis you can conclude that. Yes their rating rating would go up, but sandbagging (resigning on move 0 or 1 multiple times in a row). Nobody below 1500 can easily recognize a cheat without engine analysis. But even non chess playing people could see it with engine analysis (if properly taught).

I played a 1400 rated player who was cheating (he has since been banned and I got my points back). This is rare but not impossible.

It would be fair if chess.com do action to both parties!

Do investigation on accuser vs defendant., close the account whoever is wrong!

 I bet, 99% of accusers would be wrong and these false claim of cheating would be less and less!

I find players in the 1100-1400 range to be pretty hateful. They tend to just clog up the board and move there pieces meaninglessly around trying to win on time, they never resign a losing position and make you play boring, pointless games to the end because they don't know anything about chess etiquette. Mostly a bunch of wankers. It really pisses me off when my rating falls below 1400 and I have to play them. 1100-1200 are probably the worst though.

You must not dislike it too much. You intentionally keep yourself at that level in order to play the very same people you complain about.

That's an interesting idea. 

I think it should only apply to name and shame forum threads and reports with no analysis (so if the report was based on a game or two and their centipawn loss the player wouldn't get you banned).

It would have to be certain that the player wasn't cheating (sometimes cheating seems likely but can't be proven so they aren't banned but the report wasn't wrong).

What do you know about anything?

I know that you are not good enough to be complaining. Yet, for some reason you feel compelled to do it anyway. Whining is very unattractive.  It's a social skill you need to unlearn. If you dont like playing 1400 rated players, get better. I lose to 1200 rated players all the time. It doesn't bother me because I enjoy their companionship. Which is what chess is all about.

I can't be arsed to read the whole thread.

Has anyone put forward the following theory:

1200 is exactly the rating at which many new forum members enter the site. When I first registered, years ago, I was assigned a tentative rating of 1200.

I'm not a 1200 player. In real life, my rating is around 2000. So I was one of those "ridiculously strong" 1200 players, for a while.

Perhaps that's why the playing strengths of players in that range seems so out-of-whack... it's just too close to the forum's "inlet" to get a reliable reading, since players near 1200 haven't sorted themselves out into weak-vs-strong yet.

If you want to improve your rating play rated games against the computers - they seem incredibly overrated (at least 1 year ago - but, recently, the performance of the lower levels against Hikaru did not impress me either). I played two games against the computers to reach 1600 and stayed there since playing "humans" (only few games - I mostly play on others sites).

At another site that starts with an "L", they take a strong stance against cheating, and every one is spot checked or audited on autopilot for cheating. It's the only thing the management there is mainly concerned about.

And then recently, one of my "friends" there whom I did not suspect of cheating was marked as a cheater. I also had other low rated opponents who seemed extra strong, although I beat them, but they also beat me, and then later on, when you look at their account, it shows they were marked as cheaters....(I did not report them).

So in conclusion, the cheating is sophisticated these days and the cheaters do not cheat for every move, or every game, and maybe they have a partner who helps out sometimes, but I can only deduce that cheating is probably more widespread than I realized.

And I always wondered why has the average chess playing ability of people slowly gotten better over the years (average chess players now are playing much better for the SAME RATING than they were 10 years ago) that the internet has been on...it could be tons of practice, but maybe....it could also be due to more widespread and more....sophisticated cheating going on?

Who knows....

not fair

go and bore someone else.

He might have started at 800 rating in chess.com

So that's how it is, sophisticated cheating. Thank you.

Right, you will probably lose to me as well.