Another giveaway that you're playing a sandbagger is when they make rude comments during the game, something like - is your rating really that high?
An experienced player can usually tell quite quickly that someone is faking their low rating, or else that player is cheating.
lol what a baller.
Another giveaway that you're playing a sandbagger is when they make rude comments during the game, something like - is your rating really that high?
An experienced player can usually tell quite quickly that someone is faking their low rating, or else that player is cheating.
I'm not sure if " is your rating really that high?" is a rude comment, I guess it is open to interpretation.
I do agree though that an experienced player can usually tell quite quickly if someone is faking a low rating. Sometimes it's so obvious it's ridiculous !
i dont get how u can be mad about a blitz game its a very easy mistake to make to lose a game against someone 300 poitns lower than you in 5 minute chess
spawkle529, it's not about losing a game or even 100 games. This is about pleyers misrepresenting themselves and their abilities... for whatever reason.
Another giveaway that you're playing a sandbagger is when they make rude comments during the game, something like - is your rating really that high?
An experienced player can usually tell quite quickly that someone is faking their low rating, or else that player is cheating.
I'm not sure if " is your rating really that high?" is a rude comment, I guess it is open to interpretation.
I do agree though that an experienced player can usually tell quite quickly if someone is faking a low rating. Sometimes it's so obvious it's ridiculous !
Yeah, I meant to say when you're playing against someone rated way lower than you but you can see they are playing like a strong player - Then they ask "is your rating really that high?"
Weirdly, sandbaggers seem to get a kick out of such behaviour.
I could understand maybe one of them trying to lose on purpose, but a Dozen or so ?? uh-uh, I think they were just some really sad sac players, possibly just branching out from checkers for the first time ?
Perhaps you're right.
today while i was observing an under 1200 rated game i came across a player who had the rating of 550, he won all his games against players with rating of between 1000 to 1199. he himself told me that he was a 1400 rated player, this is not at all fair to the honest rated players playing in the tournament.
i was just observing and i got upset to no limit, if i were playing i would be devastated. Something has to be done about these sandbaggers !!!
He used to be 1400 but that time he was lower. Nothing is wrong with that. I was higher than 1500 and lower than 1200 during short period of time. My play depends on my physical form very much. Do you think i'm a sandbagger? Maybe i would have won a tournament if i had tried to take part in it when i was lower rated.
No, that is not what i meant, what i meant was he told me that he intentionally went to a rating of 550 and won this tournament, i don't think the term 'intentional' would apply in your case, i agree with you that ups and downs are a part of chess, i myself used to be a 600 rated player but i climed up to a rating of 1200 and presently i have a tactics rating of 1800 ;)....the sandbagger case that i was mentioning was totally diffrent.
No, that is not what i meant, what i meant was he told me that he intentionally went to a rating of 550 and won this tournament, i don't think the term 'intentional' would apply in your case, i agree with you that ups and downs are a part of chess, i myself used to be a 600 rated player but i climed up to a rating of 1200 and presently i have a tactics rating of 1800 ;)....the sandbagger case that i was mentioning was totally diffrent.
I agree, i can't imagine flactuation that much. But what's the point of losing 800 points? It would be enough for him to be a little bit under 1200 to take part in that tournament.
No, that is not what i meant, what i meant was he told me that he intentionally went to a rating of 550 and won this tournament, i don't think the term 'intentional' would apply in your case, i agree with you that ups and downs are a part of chess, i myself used to be a 600 rated player but i climed up to a rating of 1200 and presently i have a tactics rating of 1800 ;)....the sandbagger case that i was mentioning was totally diffrent.
I agree, i can't imagine flactuation that much. But what's the point of losing 800 points? I would be enough for him to be a little bit under 1200 to take part in that tournament.
I've heard of tournaments where you can be DQ'ed if you're playing way above rating. I mean... there is 1600 bracket in Chess Millionaire. If you're 2200 and faking 1600, you have a good chance at the $30,000 or w/e the prize is.
I mean, if you're watching a 1600-1799 tournament and run every move though a computer and it's playing the #1-#3 moves every single time, it's safe to say that person is not 1600...
The question is, though: How is this arbitrated? The problem with DQ'ing someone for being "out of level" is that it's often up to opinion vs. fact. To be DQ'ed for lying about your name is not the same thing as being DQ'ed because "you're too good".
don't fake a low rating to win and play honest!:)
Hello! Is sandbagging considered cheating on chess.com? What happens to the sandbagger?
Hello! Is sandbagging considered cheating on chess.com? What happens to the sandbagger?
Hello! Is sandbagging considered cheating on chess.com? What happens to the sandbagger?
thats a good question actually. are there any Chess.com staff members that are following and would care to clarify that ?
in blitz too
slimcheffy won against a 1658 rated player so right now he's saying he cheated himself
this is one of the stupidest comments yet . congrats Shadow105 this is quite an accomplishment given some of the ridiculous comments before yours.
The following is a series of questions that uses something called deductive reasoning (which no one seems to be familiar with...)
1.Where does it say in the rules that faking a low rating is not allowed?
If the rules do indeed say this, gather the evidence and report them. If not, proceed to question 2.
2. Why should there be a rule against it?
3. How would the rule be implemented in a sensible matter?
If you can answer questions 2 and 3, then present those answers to this post (later the staff if you actually have a reason) and maybe you will actually have a point and not just be complaining. If you can't answer questions 2 and 3, then that makes it perfectly obvious that this post is worthless. Question 3 ,in my opinion, is the kicker here.
Perhaps you have answered these questions in a previous reply. If that is the case then you should have proceeded as indicated above and not continued just seeking attention. Forgive me for not reading through all the bs.
As stated above, if all else fails just go play OTB.
I once spent an evening showing a beginner friend of mine some of the classical games from the past. Games of Anderson, Morphy, etc. He was amazed by the beauty of these games.
He asked "Can you play like that??" He then challenged me to get on Chess.com, challenge players <1000, (much lower than I usually play,) give away my queen in the opening "Scott free," and try to still win.
I played about a dozen games. I couldn't get anybody to take my bloody queen. No matter how hard I tried to sac it. Or how obvious I made it it was hanging.
Then I started thinking "These folks may be trying to lose on purpose...."
I could understand maybe one of them trying to lose on purpose, but a Dozen or so ?? uh-uh, I think they were just some really sad sac players, possibly just branching out from checkers for the first time ?