Please Chess.com make a filter to avoid pair to new accounts.

If Daily has a filter like this (and it does), why can't the rest of them have it? I agree completely.

Better yet, start handing out IP bans and new account creation bans for confirmed cheaters, or start putting them in a player pool where they only get paired with other confirmed cheaters. That's the more obvious solution, but this would be alright, too.

 Optimissed escreveu:

Rodrigo-Moraes wrote:

So many persons create new accounts and they are not new to chess.com

Then genuine new accounts would be more likely to leave the site.

This is exactly what I feel when I see an account created 15 days ago playing so much different than the rest of the opponents I face.
It could be someone that plays Chess the whole life, or someone that came from another site.
But my feeling is that in most cases is someone that has a record of winning and losses or number of games that he/she doesn't likes and start over to look more proeficient.
I heard many times things like if you have more than 500 games and you are not 1000 then there is something wrong for sure... And this creates the myth I talked here many times that 600 players are people that don't even know to move pieces, which is not true today.
I have 2,500 games and NEVER hit 800.
Today if I play 72 of accuracy it's a draw or a lose... To win at 720-750 you MUST play 76+, 80, 90
Hard to see precisions above 90 in this ELO, but really hard too to see 75- winning a game.
I started 400, dropped down for 200, and then found out 200 kind of harder than 400 because many 200 players (who is horrible, like me at the time), are better than some really newbies 400...
I started to beat consistently 200-300 and reached to 400 again in 50 games or so.
Then from 500 I lose everytime, got back to 400, and faced the majoriry of cheaters in this level.
Start to beat 400-500 frequently after 150 games, and faced the worst problem so far that was 500-600
Recently 650-750 is my problem, and there is no cheaters at all, but there is A LOT of new accounts that play so many good finals, and tatics that don't match of things I usally see.
When someone defends everything, and they can see the themes, or even play some really advanced things, In 5 moves you feel something off, when you click on the account it's a blitz player, or some 2016 account with thousands of games (I see a lady with 55k games still in 650 ELO).
No problem, but it hits different when you feel something is off and it is an account created 25 days ago... You don't know what to think and if you message the person asking about the chess background the person doesn't reply or say something like: "I just learned to play chess"...
Yes, the person playing Grunfeld, Caro-Kann, Jobava London System... AT 650!!!

Chess.com is a business at the end of the day, a corporation. They want as many new accounts and users as possible- whatever the consequences may entail. Number of users is the metric most important to evaluating a site like this. So it's probably botted like YouTube views and run rampant with cheaters. Then they knock a few accounts off each month to appease the users like us. Claiming they are addressing the issue. They don't care, short and simply they do not care. Profits are all that matters to a corporation. Only X amount of people play chess + Y of new players that come at a pretty stagnant rate which only a fraction of which stay and play consistently while also the amount of older people that play and pass away also is a minus to = Z number of users annually. So they let things go to manipulate and skew the statistics in their favor to make it seem more lucrative then it already is. Which wouldn't bother me, market manipulation ect is just something big corporate companies do if they would just incorporate this feature. But then it would be akin to admitting there is a large issue that would call for investigation. If investigated, it would be found that if not complicit they are criminally negligent and implicated in market manipulation. I'm not a lawyer but this is my assumption, because the other possibility is they purely want to upset their core loyal user base for the sake of upsetting them. Displacing loyal users for casuals is inherently a bad business decision because they play less and buy less. Anyone is welcome to argue with me but there is no way to make sense of their hubris on this situation and refusal to make such a simple accommodation for years long loyal players that contribute so greatly to their buisness. It is counterintuitive.

Yeah I've wanted this for so long too, maybe a toggle in settings that is off by default, which it lets you filter out new accs or less than 1k games played if you like; otherwise, they should make beginners all start at 400 or 100, not 1200 and 1600.

Players choose if they're beginners or not at account creation. The site can't know in advance shat someone's rating is and the way the Glicko rating system works, even if they choose incorrectly, the rating will get to a correct value quickly and it doesn't negatively impact opponents.

It may make sense to have new users play a number of games unrated, to find their rating, and to then let them play rated after a certain number of games.

The Glicko rating system works in a way that prevents major issues with an initial incorrect rating.

I actuality think the system hides the player ratings on new accounts, when playing, until at least 5 games are played. However, some rating is needed to seed initial pairings, and it doesn't make much difference what that is. Allowing members to choose, is often useful and most are chosing lower levels

The problem is the integrity of new players though, they still get emotional and passively cheat after blundering, which is what the thread author was getting at; versing someone with less than 300 games played feels like watching Dr.Lupo play chess. Versing someone with 10k+ games played is a very competitive experienced human game, yet far easier and less scary pairing. This isn't to say everyone are actually cheating, but creates a culture of low trust. Because beginners also get strangled with advanced chess logic by plateud veterans at their 1200 starting rating and they think how is this person so strong, even though that person genuinely still has gaps and lose, they look like cheaters to them. This is where potentially having the cup leagues play a role in matchmaking could feel progressive, just to seperate heavily experienced chess scholars from people still learning how to castle and en passant.

Probably hole bunch of a new accounts are just chesscom bots. I am waiting for filter opponents by joining date!

The site does not use bots in the playing pools