Chess.com please respond
Sort:
I think a ban isn’t taking it quite far enough. Who can think of a better punishment?
May 28, 2021
0
#3
kleong12 wrote:
I've mentioned this to chess.com support but they haven't gotten back to me for a while, so I'm making a forum for this. My friend ... got banned for "sandbagging". He wanted to get the lowest blitz rating on chess.com and lost a bunch of blitz games (I know this because we talked about this at school). He then won a rapid game using the 4 move checkmate and then got banned. He was not sandbagging, so please unban him. thanks
That's the definition of sandbagging. Your friend is the only one that can discuss with support and doesn't need an account to open a ticket.
Martin_Stahl wrote:
kleong12 wrote:
I've mentioned this to chess.com support but they haven't gotten back to me for a while, so I'm making a forum for this. My friend ... got banned for "sandbagging". He wanted to get the lowest blitz rating on chess.com and lost a bunch of blitz games (I know this because we talked about this at school). He then won a rapid game using the 4 move checkmate and then got banned. He was not sandbagging, so please unban him. thanks
That's the definition of sandbagging. Your friend is the only one that can discuss with support and doesn't need an account to open a ticket.
yes, but he tried to get his blitz rating lower, not his rapid rating
kleong12 wrote:
I've mentioned this to chess.com support but they haven't gotten back to me for a while, so I'm making a forum for this. My friend @cuzampro got banned for "sandbagging". He wanted to get the lowest blitz rating on chess.com and lost a bunch of blitz games (I know this because we talked about this at school). He then won a rapid game using the 4 move checkmate and then got banned. He was not sandbagging, so please unban him. thanks
Martin Stahl has said this already but what you described just now is basically an alternative definition for sandbagging.
He brought his blitz rating down to see how low chess.com would possibly let it go, and then won one rapid game. How is that sandbagging?
May 28, 2021
0
#7
Google says:
Sandbagging. Sandbagging involves deliberately losing rated games in order to lower one's rating so that one is eligible to enter the lower-rated section of a tournament with substantial prize money....
@kleong12
CARNAGE012 wrote:
Google says:
Sandbagging. Sandbagging involves deliberately losing rated games in order to lower one's rating so that one is eligible to enter the lower-rated section of a tournament with substantial prize money....
@kleong12
Google may control a lot of things on the internet but Chess.com will not be controlled by any other web site. Staff have good reason for these rules. and as Martin said above that really is the definition of sandbagging.
His best chance is to talk directly to support or he is toast.
May 29, 2021
0
#10
kleong12 wrote:
He brought his blitz rating down to see how low chess.com would possibly let it go, and then won one rapid game. How is that sandbagging?
The timing may seem like it was for the rapid game, but the closure would have been for the sandbagging in blitz.
So by your logic it would have been ok for he to say use a program on daily to get a higher rating but not on other forms of chess here say blitz where he honestly lost and therefore should not be banned for violating fair play? He violated the fair play no matter what he did playing other variants. Banning is what he deserved.
CARNAGE012 wrote:
Google says:
Sandbagging. Sandbagging involves deliberately losing rated games in order to lower one's rating so that one is eligible to enter the lower-rated section of a tournament with substantial prize money....
@kleong12
According to google, this is the definition of sandbagging. He was never intentionally trying to play lower strength players and beat them. He just wanted to see how low the chess.com UI would let his rating go down.
May 29, 2021
0
#13
kleong12 wrote:
CARNAGE012 wrote:
Google says:
Sandbagging. Sandbagging involves deliberately losing rated games in order to lower one's rating so that one is eligible to enter the lower-rated section of a tournament with substantial prize money....
@kleong12
According to google, this is the definition of sandbagging. He was never intentionally trying to play lower strength players and beat them. He just wanted to see how low the chess.com UI would let his rating go down.
Sandbagging is intentionally lowering rating; it doesn't matter what the intent is. The rating is lowered well below the player's actual strength.
Regardless, it is against the site's Fair Play policy:
https://support.chess.com/article/648-what-do-i-need-to-know-about-fair-play-on-chess-com
- Fixing game results by arranging games, playing with multiple accounts or losing intentionally is also against the rules.
I've mentioned this to chess.com support but they haven't gotten back to me for a while, so I'm making a forum for this. My friend @cuzampro got banned for "sandbagging". He wanted to get the lowest blitz rating on chess.com and lost a bunch of blitz games (I know this because we talked about this at school). He then won a rapid game using the 4 move checkmate and then got banned. He was not sandbagging, so please unban him. thanks