lichess.org
Donate

Sandbagging

#1
Hello. Received this msg from Lichess:

"You have lost a couple games after a few moves. Please note that you MUST try to win every rated game.
Losing rated games on purpose is called "sandbagging" and is not allowed on Lichess.

Thank you for your understanding."

Thank you, however, that "Thank you" may be premature; I don't understand. Please help me earn that "Thank you". Questions.

.. How is it determined whether or not a player is trying to win or not?
.. Anyone play tennis, soccer, ... simply for the love of the game, quite regardless of who wins?
.. Mobile Lichess misclicks have weighed heavily on at least 10% of Mobile Lichess losses.
.. Mobile Lichess is awesome -- great for a nightcap game. Is playing while stupid not allowed?
.. What possible motivation could a player have for "sandbagging"?
.. Why are players assumed guilty of "sandbagging" before proven innocent?

Aside.
Both Science and Western Judiciaries put the burden of proof on the plaintiff. How about Exhibit A, a list of games, at least for sandbagging evidence ... at best, so the defendant has reference for review. For rectification. Which, depending on the standard used for proof, favors accepting the null hypothesis of innocence.

Apologies for the verbose apology, sincerely,
A Lichess Fan Who Should Open A Github Ticket To Add Bughouse And Fix Some Observed App Bugs
#2
@arceus-io said in #1:
> .. How is it determined whether or not a player is trying to win or not?
Resign after very few moves --> not trying to win

> .. Anyone play tennis, soccer, ... simply for the love of the game, quite regardless of who wins?
The fun comes at least in part from trying to win. Tennis is very boring if your opponent doesn't even try to hit the ball, isn't it?

> .. What possible motivation could a player have for "sandbagging"?
E.g. taking part in Uxxxx tournaments

> .. Why are players assumed guilty of "sandbagging" before proven innocent?
You got a warning. The proof comes from statistics: If you resign every other game after very few moves, it becomes more and more likely that you want to lower your rating.
>
> Aside.
> Both Science and Western Judiciaries put the burden of proof on the plaintiff. How about Exhibit A, a list of games, at least for sandbagging evidence ... at best, so the defendant has reference for review. For rectification. Which, depending on the standard used for proof, favors accepting the null hypothesis of innocence.
This is neither science nor jurisdiction, but a private web service.
#3
You have failed to make your first move a lot in recent arenas. Any reason why?
#4
Apologies, argument thread cont'd, given dialogic nature of truth. Lichess may be be owned by a private party, but would venture to guess its open source code has a lot of folks that were not invited to the private party (who are providing an outstanding service, btw). at the end of the day, everyone that submits anything from feature to pull requests are likely also playing here. Does Thibault Duplessis still sit at the helm? surely as a programmer he understands the value or lichess.org is only as great as its development community. the latter would not exist without the former.

aside.
Thibault,if you happens across this, sent you a LI request :)

>.. How is it determined whether or not a player is trying to win or not?

>Resign after very few moves --> not trying to win

Silly question: are there more or less than 1E9 different unexpected events that would suddenly take priority over avoiding the sandbagger look, e.g., house burning down, the domestic little ones become very motivated to bring splatoon3 into the very local neighborhood, {...}.

aside.
was playing a crazyhouse tourney yesterday -- en route to the gym. i may have resigned or timed out several matches while driving. lichess is awesome, but avoiding an auto accident sometimes takes priority. i could be dead wrong and have mistaken lichess.org as a game service. outside of any players making a living from lichess.org, about anything in the real, physical world can override game time priority. see the Federer note below

>.. Anyone play tennis, soccer, ... simply for the love of the game, quite regardless of who wins?

>The fun comes at least in part from trying to win. Tennis is very boring if your opponent doesn't even try to hit the ball, isn't it?

an argument can be made that there are an infinite different ways to spin this ball, here's one; was Federer trying to hit the ball or did an Nth party agent place a counter bet from the caymans? youtube/eXvbyhKRfL0 if Federer is vulnerable, how many misses or mistakes are mere mortals open to be mischaracterized as intentional misses, that tennis is his job notwithstanding. how many players playing at lichess.org can say it's their job?

>.. What possible motivation could a player have for "sandbagging"?

>E.g. taking part in Uxxxx tournaments

wait what? unless there are (main net) BTC prizes at stake, the question still stands. maybe Lichess makes an undischarged assumption about the value of ratings, status, ..., {enter any motive tethered to, and only to, one's ego here}.

>.. Why are players assumed guilty of "sandbagging" before proven innocent?

>You got a warning. The proof comes from statistics: If you resign every other game after very few moves, it becomes more and more likely that you want to lower your rating.

great. share the evidence, say, game references, statistical inferencing methods. {...}. you know they used to burn witches at the stake without providing even a black cat's lick of evidence.

aside.
some of us are mathematicians and are thankful there are often better methods than within the realm of statistics. you know, like the methods employed by the BLS to justify publishing inflation data that most folks know is horse{}.

>Aside.

>Both Science and Western Judiciaries put the burden of proof on the plaintiff. How about Exhibit A, a list of games, at least for sandbagging evidence ... at best, so the defendant has reference for review. For rectification. Which, depending on the standard used for proof, favors accepting the null hypothesis of innocence.

>This is neither science nor jurisdiction, but a private web service.

Understood. the opening statement has bearing here too. just saying that maybe, given that the best chess players cannot out-guess the calculated decision trees on your phone -- from, you know -- Science... er... ok, there's no irony there.
#6
[ @arceus-io said in #1: ]
>A Lichess Fan Who Should Open A Github Ticket To Add Bughouse And Fix Some Observed App Bugs

> By all means, if you're seeing App bugs you don't need to be cryptic about it:

reconsidering, given i'd be contributing to the source root that primarily benefits private parties that can burn witches without providing evidence.
#7
>.. What possible motivation could a player have for "sandbagging"?

>E.g. taking part in Uxxxx tournaments

wait, what? replace all the goo above with...

BLUF: Uxxxx? how would intentionally losing qualify a player to a tournament of value -- value in the neighborhood of
(and weighing risk v. reward against) violating lichess.org rules?
#8
@arceus-io said in #4:
> Silly question: are there more or less than 1E9 different unexpected events that would suddenly take priority over avoiding the sandbagger look, e.g., house burning down, the domestic little ones become very motivated to bring splatoon3 into the very local neighborhood, {...}.
How frequently does your house burn down?

> was playing a crazyhouse tourney yesterday -- en route to the gym. i may have resigned or timed out several matches while driving. lichess is awesome, but avoiding an auto accident sometimes takes priority. i could be dead wrong and have mistaken lichess.org as a game service.
IMO, you should be banned for life - from driving cars.

> an argument can be made that there are an infinite different ways to spin this ball, here's one; was Federer trying to hit the ball or did an Nth party agent place a counter bet from the caymans? youtube/eXvbyhKRfL0 if Federer is vulnerable, how many misses or mistakes are mere mortals open to be mischaracterized as intentional misses, that tennis is his job notwithstanding. how many players playing at lichess.org can say it's their job?
This is getting ridiculous here.

> wait what? unless there are (main net) BTC prizes at stake, the question still stands. maybe Lichess makes an undischarged assumption about the value of ratings, status, ..., {enter any motive tethered to, and only to, one's ego here}.
May be lichess has a little bit more experience with bad player behaviour than you?

> great. share the evidence, say, game references, statistical inferencing methods. {...}. you know they used to burn witches at the stake without providing even a black cat's lick of evidence.
Calm down. You got a warning. As far as I know, lichess have not burned anyone since quite a while.
#9
#1 and #4 are amazingly useless when the reality is that you received a warning for sandbagging presumably for not moving three times in a row in lichess.org/tournament/xkikbF9X.

Now, if "there are more or less 1E9 different unexpected events that would suddenly take priority over avoiding the sandbagger look" what is the probability that this is happening three times in a row in a time span of less than 8 minutes?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.