Hustlers in chess

I have played in just a couple <1200 tourneys and I have noticed something that is rather uncanny. These tourneys inevitably have several players who are barely under the 1200 mark (1174, 1186 for instance). And I have found multiple instances where such players are rated substantially higher in the standard, blitz whatever. These players inevitably steamroll the lower rated players. I played in a tourney where there were two such players and, surprise-surprise, they took 1st and 2nd.

I can handle losing, I do it all the time. What I find rather insulting is when, by all appearances, people are hustling in an online chess tourney.

maybe the lowest rateds should win

My blitz rating is a bit lower than my standard rating.  I'm pretty sure that's because I'm not as good at blitz though . . . 

Give people the benefit of the doubt.  It's not that hard for something like this to happen:

Step 1:  Person joins a chess.com tournament with a start date 2 weeks in the future, joining the 1600-1800 section.

Step 2:  Person forgets to log in a for a few days and 50 of their games time out, dropping them to below 1200.

Step 3:  The tournament sees their new rating and switches them to the under 1200 section automatically, so when they log back in and the tournament starts, they're already there.

Or, maybe something like this:

Step 1:  Person joins chess.com and plays a few turn-based games, losing most of them.

Step 2:  Person plays a ton of Live games and gets better at chess.

Step 3:  Person decides to get back to playing turn-based chess and joins a tournament in their current ratings range - which happens to be low, since they lost those first few games.

Or even simpler, if they're a premium member - they played 1 online game and lost, putting their rating below 1200, and then joined the tournament.

I may be all wet on this, it just seems a bit uncanny. I have seen it several times.

I think the better players should win, absolutely. As long as they are not keeping their rating just under 1200 to get into those tourneys and have easier opponents.

Aww...who knows?

Well you're all doing okay & you got lucky-break vs your own opponent Joey!    

(I recognise quite a few names in the team. Must be from VC.)

You're gonna get better playing higher rated opponents anyway. So play em the best you can, take your licks? And chalk it up as a learning experience. Were not playing for big cash prizes here so is it really that big of a deal.

Naw, there is a far shorter list...

1. Things cowdungflung says that are funny.

2. Things cowdungflung says that are clever.

3. Things cowdungflung says that are intelligent.

Wait, there is one more...

4. Obama's economic policies that have worked.

Haha I am one of these "hustlers."

Sometimes I play a few 1 min games just to warm up and I'm pretty terrible at them because I move slow (not a "reactive" player).  So my bullet rating is slightly under 1200 - not on purpose, just the way it turned out.  My blitz and standard ratings on the other hand are >1700.  Then sometimes when I want to have a little fun, I enter a 2 | 1 tourney and usually come in first place.

hahaha

The fact is that there is a lot to complain about. It would be refreshing to see more people with just a little moral character. It is quite amazing that you criticize me for pointing this out but have nothing to say about someone who admits to being a hustler. By the way, purposely losing games in order to keep your rating atrificially low is considered cheating and can get the person kicked off chess.com. So it DOES happen.

The fact is that people who do this are, first of all, as sleazy as they come. Such people evidently can't compete at their own level so they get their jollies by steamrolling lower ranked players. Second, they are cheating the lower ranked players of the chance to compete on a level plane.

I only impugn the character of those who deserve it. YES, when you win a tourney all you get is a little icon and the pleasure of having won. Thanks for making my point. The FACT is that there ARE hustlers in these tourneys. Some who even admit to it. You say there is almost no reason to hustle in these tourneys. Well, there is equally no reason to cheat on chess.com yet there are dozens to scores of accounts closed for cheating each week. There are many people out there with very poor character who DO get their jollies whipping people of lower ability. Why? I can't begin to understand the satisfaction in winning that way but the fact is people do it.

All your comments about 'being new' or 'not taking online chess seriously' have nothing to do with this subject. I am talking about people who, in most cases, have a long history on chess.com.

Also, this is not a matter of raising my rating. Of course I want to. And no, I am not going to close my account and open a new one just so I can have a 1200 (provisional) rating. I want a higher rating by earning it through study, learning and growth.

You can call my thread a "wacky conclusion" that I "stubbornly [cling] to". I couldn't care less. You are "stubbornly clinging" to your position. It is called having an opinion. In my case an opinion based on facts that I have observed and people who have admitted to being hustlers.

Hustlers hustle for a reason!!.  Money, prizes, whatever.  Nobody hustles for nothing.  Just play better opponents and stop complaining.  I totally agree with you joey.

Your point has nothing to do with cheating.  Cheating is an entirely different story.  Playing lower rated opponents because you want to feel good about yourself may be kind of lame but it is far from cheating.  Even if you did make a valid point what did you hope to get out of this?  How do you or even chess.com expect to regulate the etiquette of hundreds of thousands of chess players?  Just deal with it.  I played a standard game against a player who I thought was a 1400 rated player.  I actually had a chance to win, but I blundered in the endgame and ended up losing.  When I looked at his profile afterwards I saw that his online rating was in fact 1800 which is a pretty strong player for me to play.  And I almost won.  So I felt pretty good that I played a strong player and almost beat him.  I thanked him for the game, analyzed it as best I could and then went back and studied a bunch of rook endgames because that is why I lost.  It was a good learning experience. I didn't start a useless poll claiming I was hustled.  Because I wasnt.  Now if he played me for 100 bucks then yea, I would've considered myself hustled.  you seem to not understand what the term hustling really is.

Jack, you shouldn't use "admitted to being hustlers" as evidence in your favor.  If you're talking about me, I jokingly said I fit the criteria because I had a bullet rating <1200.  But that is just because I'm terrible at 1 min.  I didn't deliberately lose games.

I know full well what "hustling" is. It is putting on the appearance of a lower level of proficiency so you can play against people at said level and easily beat them. Whether money is at stake or not is irrelevant. And I never said hustling was cheating. Chess.com considers losing games purposely to be cheating. That is what I said.

As if anyone would be that pathetic. And if they are so what? They are only cheating themselves. 

Well, joeydvivre. Your posts are always..."interesting". You say "this is going to sound ad hominem but that is not the way it is intended" yet you go on to attack my character which is the very essence of ad hominem. So, what you said did not just SOUND ad hominem, it was. It is actually hilarious that you deny what your intention BEFORE you do the very thing you said you did not intend to do. Hmmm. You said that I draw quick conclusions and stick to them dogmatically. 1. How do you know how long the conclusions took me to draw? 2. Are these conclusions something you plan to stick to dogmatically?

You said that I "have a problem with [my] chess". Well, seeing as you are NOT intending to be ad hominem then you MUST know what that problem is. When that idea came to you, did you try to hold off forming your opinion about my "chess problem"? Did you entertain the idea that your opinion might be fueled by the fact that you have a problem with just about anything I post? Before you go spouting off advice about properly reaching conclusions, try following your own advice. Your arguments, while I am sure they are entirely sensible to you, are desperately flawed.

I fully realize that there are multitudes of reasons that can affect people's skill levels. The simple point I made is the uncanny fact that I have observed in many cases is players with ratings just barely under 1200 in rapid but well above in others. In one or two cases that is a simple anamoly. In many more cases it is too coincidental. Plus I have had people admit it and laugh about it, seemingly proud of what they were doing. That is slimy.