a question about sandbagging?

@AtomicAltAccount please watch your language... be nice and polite.
If a question doesn't need an answer it is rhetorical question, but not stupid. Philosophy is not a stupid thing, it requires thinking outside the box. It appears you can't do that.

There are also "sandbaggers" with high rating. Some players only play much weaker opponents to win all games. Their rating is fake.

@Feniks714 said in #11:
> @AtomicAltAccount please watch your language... be nice and polite.

@Feniks714 said in #11:
...it requires thinking outside the box. It appears you can't do that.

LOL lichess forums are something else, really. Patronizing about what's kind and what's rude and then one line later, coming up with, pretty much, "you're a dumbo with a one-dimensional brain".

Nice, man, you really showed politeness right there, mr. Nietzche.

@Slow_Sheep said in #12:
> There are also "sandbaggers" with high rating. Some players only play much weaker opponents to win all games. Their rating is fake.
it has been solved by lichess by changing pairing option, now you can only play with more or less equal players. Before, you could play lets say only against 1800-2000. I still think that it would be really difficult to reach 2200 by playing only with that rating range. You would have to win like 30 games in a row. Good luck with that.

@Feniks714

The answer to your question is that what is banned is collusion in the results. The fact that somebody throws a game to get their rating lower does not by itself suggest that the winner had any knowledge of it. Punishing the winner for something his opponent did is fundamentally wrong.

Collusion has been happening in chess for more than a hundred years, at every level, and in competitive events generally for thousands of years. It is not the sort of thing that can be just fixed by changing the algorithm.

@Feniks714 said in #14:
> @Slow_Sheep said in #12:
>
> There are also "sandbaggers" with high rating. Some players only play much weaker opponents to win all games. Their rating is fake.
>
> it has been solved by lichess by changing pairing option, now you can only play with more or less equal players. Before, you could play lets say only against 1800-2000. I still think that it would be really difficult to reach 2200 by playing only with that rating range. You would have to win like 30 games in a row. Good luck with that.

This is still not difficult because you can choose games from lobby against players 500 pts lower than you. Also after some time without playing your rating is provisional which speeds up the whole process.

@KALEDZEDAJIMAMSLINU "you're a dumbo with a one-dimensional brain" it is your phrase, I didn't say that. Dont put your words into someone elses mouth. I wrote "you cannot think outside the box" which is not "you're a dumbo with a one-dimensional brain" XXD
Maybe you should be politician...

Ok the thread is closed, my whole point was this philosophical losing on purpose @ winning on purpose which you didn't get.

@Feniks714 said in #1:
> If losing on purpose is against the rules then why winning on purpose is not?

Very simple. Chess is a game of winning, not losing. The easy way to lose is by resigning. You have to put in a lot more effort to win. Anyone who simply presses the resign button to get a lower rating is cheating and is known as sandbagging. Since the point of the game is to win, trying to win is not a cheat and therefore not sandbagging!

My point Odi was, that if you lose by getting checkmated, then I can accuse you that you did that on purpose, which is ridiculous but true. You guys don't really get philosophy.