Hustlers in chess

Not to change the subject, but I think it was last week, I beat this dude rated 700+ points higher than me in a match and tourney.

You could easily tell it rustled his jimmies because he was like,

"You lucky &%$#!"

I didn't want to add insult to injury by asking him to consider who it was that just got nailed to help him see who the &%$# truly was between the two of us.

And of course, luck had nothing to do with it. Checkmate baby! 

"Dam* it feels good to be a gangster." lol 

Can't see it in your games on this site??

@learningthemoves  I cannot see such a win on chess.com either. In fact your average opposition is around 250-300 points lower than your own rating?

Was it outside of chess.com this ocurred because if OTB & swearing happened you could have told tournament official??

im a hustla!

This sure is one hustling, bustling thread.  @ChurninTheMoves adds color.

I don't know what sort of hustling you have done in your life, but nobody hustles for free. Otherwise what is the point. Why don't you just embrace the opportunity to play stronger players instead of complaining about it.

CaptJackAubrey wrote:

mattyf9 wrote:

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.

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.

It was a 1 minute bullet game where he should have been mated himself 2 moves earlier.

We could also do without the "c" word on here.(post#28)

Okay yes bullet-chess is where tempers tend to boil-over the most.

(Agree unnecessary to reiterate foul language here)

I am no hustler but my blitz rating just happens to be right on the bubble of breaking 1500. As I'm writing this, it's 1503. Most of the tournies I've played in in recent years are for 1499 and under. It would be easy for me to drop a game a few minutes before a tournament to get below 1499. Would this make me a hustler?

It sounds like you're talking about people who would do this, but would drop several hundred points to do so. This seems ridiculous to me, as you'd have to lose like twenty games to lose 200 points.

That said, I wouldn't doubt some sad soul would do this to win a trophy and feel good about him/herself.

Seems like this would be an easy thing for chess.com to track automatically and place under its violations of fair use policies.

Another good point. Its silly to play against opponents hundreds of points lower than you bc if you lose your rating drops a lot while if you play stronger opponents it may only drop a few points. Stupid "hustlers."

Congruity wrote:

I am no hustler but my blitz rating just happens to be right on the bubble of breaking 1500. As I'm writing this, it's 1503. Most of the tournies I've played in in recent years are for 1499 and under. It would be easy for me to drop a game a few minutes before a tournament to get below 1499. Would this make me a hustler?

It sounds like you're talking about people who would do this, but would drop several hundred points to do so. This seems ridiculous to me, as you'd have to lose like twenty games to lose 200 points.

That said, I wouldn't doubt some sad soul would do this to win a trophy and feel good about him/herself.

Seems like this would be an easy thing for chess.com to track automatically and place under its violations of fair use policies.

What I have seen is people with ratings just under 1200 in rapid but well above in others. You are right, it IS sad. People don't need to "get" anything per se, as has been suggested by others. Just winning the tourney seems to be reason enough for them. I know chess.com can nail people for losing purposely, it is considered cheating. Beyond that I don't know.

mattf9, I beg to differ. There are all kinds of cheating that happen on this website as evidenced by the scores of people who have their memberships revoked. What could they possibly have to gain by any form of cheating on this site? They are not going to make any money, trophies etc. People that cheat, in whatever form, do so for their own perverse reasons. I suppose to people like you and I, and I am sure everyone else who has posted here, cheating makes no sense. I suppose it only makes sense to the cheater.

I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet or not, but I'll say it either to be the first, or back up the opinion of the original;

Maybe the reason people with 1195 rated people play in under 1200 tournies because their rating is under 1200? I mean, they can't join a over 1200 tourny with a 1195 rating because they are five points under 1200?

As Jose D'Vivre said above, one must also consider "d) Simply getting better at chess faster than the online rating can keep up (getting better than 1200 does not take much effort for lots of people)." 

That is a quite sound conclusion in our "on line" chess games.  These games even at a three day/move time control often go on for two months or more, which is plenty of time for a chess player vastly improve, especially at the lower levels. 

It's not really that hard of a concept to grasp really.

It's a reference to a song by the "Geto Boys."  This song was popularized in the 1999 film "Office Space."

@learningthemoves: You overplayed him.He was slow in developing a simple checkmate thread.Why? All good chess players seems to like to play slow gratifying checkmates.

@wyh2013 Makes sense. I thought he was just drunk.