Rating Manipulation Is Unsportmanlike Behavior

It is very disturbing to me that so many players seem to be purposely manipulating their online rating (making it lower) to enter tournaments for which they are overqualified. This ruins the tournament for others who are playing to the best of their ability against what should be similar strength opponents.  As one example, take a look at the leader board for the current 26th Chess.com tournament (1400-1600).  Everyone of those 10-0-0 players had to be rated <1600 when the tourney started.  They are not new players to chess.com who are playing their first tourney but the ones I checked have been members for years.  I think that a person's highest rating with the six month period prior to the start of a tournament should be used to determine whether the tournament is open to you.  If your were rated 2000 last month, you cannot enter a 1200-1400 tournament just because you dumped games to get your rating to 1397 the day before the tourney started.  Comment if you agree that rating manipulation is unsportmenlike. 

I think including historical ratings for a certain period of time is a good idea (six months seems about right), but there should probably also be something to stop people playing more than one level below the highest rating they have reached, regardless of their current rating, e.g., if you're in the 1200-1400 level now, six months ago you were 1400-1600, and a year ago you were 1800-2000, you have to play in at least the 1600-1800 category. Maye two levels below would be fairer, but you get the idea.

The problem is you don't know if someone is sandbagging or they are having a bad day. Ratings fluctuate.

So what if you are 1800, had a bad day and rating fell to 1797, then beat few 1100s to go back to 1800 in order to join the 1800+ tournament? Would that be sandbagging?

Another site uses a player's best rating for the last ninety days. You'd have to be really determined in order to keep your rating artificially low for 90 days.

Obviously no, because the player joined a 1800+ tournament, not a <1800 tournament.

I agree that rating manipulation is unsportsmanship.

but I have a problem I am currently in a lot of games, I resign as soon as I have lost. however those that I have a won position tend to play a lot longer.

therefor I don't know what my rating will be after all those games.

Quote: I think that a person's highest rating with the six month period prior to the start of a tournament should be used to determine whether the tournament is open to you. 

how should a person come back up again if he has been on the losings streat unintentionally if you did manage to get this a rule changed?

I can't believe that there are many people who "sandbag" to get into a ratings limited tournament.  There are no money prizes for winning a tournament, and if you know that you sandbagged to get the chance to beat lower rated players, there is not even any benefit psychologically.  How can any one feel good about beating weak players?

Even if the problem were rampant, who cares?  If I am entered into a ratings limited event and play someone who sandbagged, then I get the chance to play a stronger player.  If I lose, I get to learn from the game.

Some will point out that one's rating might be artificially depressed by losing to a player who sandbagged.  Again, who cares?  Your chess.com rating has absolutely no value or relevance to anything in the world.  No one is going to give you a job because of your chess.com rating.  No one is going to give you a scholarship or money.  No one in the world will care what your chess.com rating is -- not FIDE or the USCF, not other chess players, and certainly not people who don't play chess.  It's a completely meaningless number.  So relax, play and have fun .... and stop worrying about what others are doing.

Someone help me download a cheat engine

Just Kidding

I've read through all of this and have come to the unsurprising conclusion that people take this stuff way too seriously: both those who may or may not be manipulating ratings, and those who feel far too aggrieved for what the situation warrants.

yeah