Massive systemic problems on chess.com

I’m sick of 2 things that chess.com doesn’t seem to want to combat. I know that this will be hidden away because it’s inconvenient to have it brought to light!

1 is the amount of sandbaggers who are making it impossible to progress at the moment. I just lost a game against a player who is actually literally double my ELO!

Secondly, the same player was a misogynistic troll, I reported them for sexual harassment and trolling as well as sandbagging.

I honestly don’t expect anything to get done about any of these things, because as I said, it is inconvenient for chess.com or the mods to actually stand up and do the right thing.

I honestly don’t care what happens to me at this point, this is ruining chess for me!

There are so many toxic players on here, I’m afraid of what they might be capable of if they’re allowed to carry on unchallenged.

Chess.com, please clean this site up!!!

I’m happy to discuss this if someone actually wants to hear what I have to say.

If not, I’m sure there would be plenty of media outlets which would love to hear what a toxic wasteland it has become here lately…

Why wouldn't you expect to lose against a player whose rating is twice yours?

At any rate, I don't see that you played any mismatches in your last 50.

Perhaps you mean someone's max rating was twice yours? People often misrated themselves when they join. That doesn't mean they are sandbagging.

Making excuses for this behaviour, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Also, what’s with quoting everything I said? It’s like you’re trying to hide your reply…

When you play someone who’s max rating and max win is over 1600, then there’s a massive problem, when you’re ‘only’ an 800! You’re a perfect example of elite behaviour. Because you’re so much higher rated, you think it means you can talk down on ‘lesser’ rated players.

Also, I find it funny that you don’t even acknowledge the rampant misogyny at all in your lacking repost…

I am sympathetic to the problems stemming from sandbagging. I have reported people who I thought were obviously sandbagging many times.

But I disagree that you can tell that someone is sandbagging just from looking at their max rating or that they beat a high rated player once.

I know that the site is working hard on find improved ways of stopping sandbagging. Unfortunately, the fixes can take a long time to be finalized.

I didn't have any way of evaluating your claim of misogyny.

Again, another player looking down on others because of some ill-perceived superiority. You’re only proving my point that, all this is doing is creating a culture of bullying in chess. Just because you’re higher rated, should not give you the right to decide upon what is right or wrong.

The facts are, the amount of sandbagging happening at lower ratings, makes it impossible to progress, thus not having the opportunity to reach a higher rating.

All that is happening, is higher rated players crashing their ratings for easy wins in tournaments, knowing full well that they’ll get their rating back to prove how ‘amazing’ they are.

It is creating an absolutely toxic atmosphere, which is starting to make the game unplayable!

Bullying is bullying by any measure. Sandbagging, is effectively bullying in chess and it’s all too easy to do online.

The fact that no one wants to acknowledge it or combat it, only proves my point…

To justbefair, I appreciate that. As for the claims of misogyny, I’ve reported a number of absolute creeps as of late for their behaviour in the comments. They could be saying it to anyone and it is 100% an abuse of power. It’s worse when it’s higher rated players too. Also, just to clarify, I hope that it doesn’t get mentioned that I should just turn off comments, as this is just allowing them to go unchecked…

The reason it may look like sandbagging is when the site updated the UI it made lots of people lose rating as it slow laggy and slow now

Max rating or highest wins don't really mean too much.

In OTB, officially rated Chess, I peaked at 1648. Currently running in the low 1400s. So a drop in rating, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Depending on how old the account is, they may have had an initial rating of 1600. There are legitimate reasons a player could have had a high rating and no longer plays near that strength anymore.

May sandbaggers and toxic users meet staff

Amen

I just love how everyone wants to defend the indefensible. Players who choose to start at a higher rating make that choice, it’s on them if they are perceived as sandbaggers. What I can’t understand is, why Lichess has a platform where everyone starts at the same level and you are then filtered to your eventual starting rating based on your performance. That way, you play at a reasonable level from the beginning. There is also no excuse for, “I started off at a high level” for forgiving and making excuses for sandbagging.

The biggest problem is, you can’t progress because of them, sure, on paper they should beat you if they are higher rated, but it shouldn’t be to your detriment or to their gain…

Not everyone, some users help them to meet staff

Yes, but also people who sandbag are often sandbagging to lower rated players.

But you don't "play at a reasonable level from the beginning", because everyone starts off at the same rating. If I made a new account on lichess, I would have to play around 30 rated games to get to where my rating would be on that site. This is usually fine for bullet, and tolerable for blitz, but what about rapid? And then I would be sandbagging for all those games, even if I did not want to!

And then, of course, there are those who are actually much lower than 1500 in playing strength, who would have to go on a long losing spree to be properly rated.

One of the most common reasons for this dip in playing strength is getting old, or simply not playing for a while, although usually the latter can be rectified quickly. I've always wondered how low people who hit their floors would go, if we did not have rating floors in tournament play.

OP has a great & valid point but it is also deeper & more complex about the inappropriate behavior that so many members exhibit on this forum.

I won a game: I should be a grandmaster ! ! !

I lost a game: Everyone on chess.com is sandbagging ! ! !

There is no middle ground

I think that the matches should be more fair. Im 481 and when I joined a tournament I got matched against a player who was 753

That’s just how tournaments go, you’re bound to be matched against people of different skill levels.

OP is lashing out at anyone who they perceive is critical of them, even if those people are trying to help.

What you have to understand is we see countless posts such as this one each year, and with the majority of the people making these claims, if someone were to review their games they'd find very little foul play. The majority of the people making the claims are losing because of their own bad play and have no one else to blame but themselves.

That isn't to say that's what is happening with OP. I haven't gone through their games and checked. But I can say the "anti elite" attitude doesn't inspire a lot of faith. No one who has responded to this is anywhere near elite. Many of us are intermediate players with chess.com ratings in the 1000-2000 range, but if we were to play in a tourney against actual expert players, we'd be cooked. All of us started as beginner/novice level players and worked our way up to where we are now. We are not unsympathetic. Chess can be brutal for those wanting to improve. There were many times when I was lower rated where I thought there must be something going on. Especially with the game review telling me I played like an 1800 or higher. But in the end, it wasn't bad actors. It was just me needing to be realistic about the level I was playing at and doing what I could to improve.

If you believe someone is sandbagging, report them. Same for any bad behavior in chat.

Firstly, calling out the OP is just lazy. The fact that you’re in the 1000-2000 rating is to the average Joe, an elite rating, for any ‘normal’ person that could be a lifetime achievement.

You say that you don’t look at my games, yet you criticise how I play, the hypocrisy is hilarious. Why you feel like this is a personal attack and thus feel the need to defend it I don’t know.

I lost another game this morning, it was completely won, and yet my opponent found a way to come up with an extremely unlikely checkmating strategy with only seconds to go, turns out their max rating was over 500 higher than mine, they were not a sub 800 player!

Just saying report them, is just making excuses for the platform again. It can be improved if the will is there.

I’m sorry if anyone takes this personally, yet if you do, that says more about you than me. It’s likely that it’s too close to their truth and I only have a problem with the players who think it’s perfectly acceptable to ruin the game for everyone else for their own gain!

If you got there the hard way and you play fair along the way, more power to you…