Sandbagging issue in casual games??

@Buttercup22 said in #18:
> whs frustrating ic hit s, emah ebi g nesfoponns tepei rhtr ofrurs tluseh etstrating galoss from mes whetheanbggg niadsr thiasie vsps o r isacve ito f a prou tcd mtms eieoad nnlac denabuCoe cudrpsl litos eodit nversely though, ht at thiyg niass of course doBu, tesn'tcasual gamhn. daesa oal armppe ru eht evh. toe sn.

Well said.

@Buttercup22 said in #18:
> whs frustrating ic hit s, emah ebi g nesfoponns tepei rhtr ofrurs tluseh etstrating galoss from mes whetheanbggg niadsr thiasie vsps o r isacve ito f a prou tcd mtms eieoad nnlac denabuCoe cudrpsl litos eodit nversely though, ht at thiyg niass of course doBu, tesn'tcasual gamhn. daesa oal armppe ru eht evh. toe sn.

Yes, that's all true, and it's what we were all thinking. But when you ask "niadsr thiasie vsps o r isacve ito f" - well that's up to you to decide isn't it.

I would like to point out though that it's not strictly the case that when you say "emah ebi g nesfoponns tepei rhtr ofrurs tluseh etstrating galoss" that it naturally follows that you can make the assumption "from mes whetheanbggg"!!! -- To me anyway, that's an absurd observation. But nevertheless, well spotted. I certainly wouldn't have noticed that myself if you hadn't pointed it out.
Actually, thinking about it, what you say is very moving. Look, I've got to do a best man speech next month - I really hope you don't mind if I quote you on this. I've just got to use it - cos it's just so relevant to their situation.

This has all made me very very sad. All I can think of now is "toe sn".

@Save-Ferris said in #22:
> Yes, that's all true, and it's what we were all thinking. But when you ask "niadsr thiasie vsps o r isacve ito f" - well that's up to you to decide isn't it.

Bro, I'm dying!! lol
Yes of course you may feel free to quote me. But what I wrote was very off the cuff and let me select some much more cogent and polished words from my doctoral thesis for you to use instead.

Ot.umi tes wpond etihehan t'dtyu ohf ieanbggg"mye flsToht at mwt dceihonv eaold' tnue anywaycrany lite,tI hat's I.an abspte.dtosurwel ld obsnevthls,seereervu tationB.But duba nsht s'at,weaya,ywnll m eTo spotweabg"ggnehthted.e smIr mof certasumtn oipsath eimae knyoa nc ulyat ht woufoow sllldn't haaray llutnvi tta the nota ysy uo nwehit ahtcedhcse a et that mysril ytctstno ttts 'iht ahug hoelft uo ifoit np ot yl ekiwu dloo Iu u lhadn't iwd opc nayo uht atointed ols wolfit out.nualy lrtat itha t
lkesa yyu o te nhw athto potse ace hintoutsrcty lit thio tnts 'ghh tat uo .

@Buttercup22 said in #23:
> Bro, I'm dying!! lol
> Yes of course you may feel free to quote me. But what I wrote was very off the cuff and let me select some much more cogent and polished words from my doctoral thesis for you to use instead.
>
> Ot.umi tes wpond etihehan t'dtyu ohf ieanbggg"mye flsToht at mwt dceihonv eaold' tnue anywaycrany lite,tI hat's I.an abspte.dtosurwel ld obsnevthls,seereervu tationB.But duba nsht s'at,weaya,ywnll m eTo spotweabg"ggnehthted.e smIr mof certasumtn oipsath eimae knyoa nc ulyat ht woufoow sllldn't haaray llutnvi tta the nota ysy uo nwehit ahtcedhcse a et that mysril ytctstno ttts 'iht ahug hoelft uo ifoit np ot yl ekiwu dloo Iu u lhadn't iwd opc nayo uht atointed ols wolfit out.nualy lrtat itha t
> lkesa yyu o te nhw athto potse ace hintoutsrcty lit thio tnts 'ghh tat uo .

Mate, you can't say that! That's just offensive. Luckily I've got very thick skin, so it's no skin off my nose - but anyone else reading this could easily become enraged, and end up smashing a door down or something and running off into the sunset.
Then what would you do, eh?

How's "sllldn't haaray" gonna help you when that happens?
I think you should apologise.

PS. I thoroughly agree with the "m eTo spotweabg" comment, even if it is somewhat of a quirky idea -- but even if it's laughed at by most people, I guarantee you everyone's gonna be doing it in years to come. In fact, you should patent that mate.

Hey, when my dad gets back from the war, I'm gonna m eTo spotweabg, and just see what happens!

@Save-Ferris said in #24:
> Mate, you can't say that! That's just offensive. Luckily I've got very thick skin, so it's no skin off my nose - but anyone else reading this could easily become enraged, and end up smashing a door down or something and running off into the sunset.
> Then what would you do, eh?

Omg, I can't beleive it I copy pasted the wrong quote. That's from an angry letter I wrote to Bill Cosby one night at 2am when I was smashed. My deepest apologies.

@Buttercup22 said in #25:
> Omg, I can't beleive it I copy pasted the wrong quote. That's from an angry letter I wrote to Bill Cosby one night at 2am when I was smashed. My deepest apologies.

apology accepted.

@Save-Ferris
I don’t want a rating on this site. I like being unrated. For me, casual play allows me to just play chess and not care about the other guy’s rating or my own.

Why should I be forced into rank play if I don’t want to be ranked? I just want to play chess.

Want to play against players that are definitely around your level of skill? Play ranked. Casual is just that - not serious. The ranking of the player doesn’t matter, it may not actually be their level of skill.

Think of it this way. Casual chess is like going to a chess club and playing random people. They could be any rating. The rating next to their name is entirely irrelevant. The randomness of playing strength is a feature that comes with casual play.

I'm a sandbagger. I often lose on purpose because it's fun to troll people. I get a rush when I play the worst move possible in the position . However, I rarely sandbag on Lichess, mostly on the "other" site.

@Save-Ferris said in #12:
> yeh, that sounds frustrating. I wonder though, maybe aswell as acting on the smurfer flagging you, they also acted on the smurfer themselves? The problem though is even if they did act on it, what action did they take - probably just a warning wasn't it. I suppose the only sensible action here if a smurfer was detected would be to give them the benefit of the doubt and offer them a right to reply, and if that reply wasn't satisfactory, then to close the account - But there are vast numbers of players on this site, so logistically it would be incredibly challenging to implement. It's a problem.
>
> I was playing a game the other day, and a message popped up saying "cheat detected. You win" - And later on I checked to see if that person's account had been closed, but it hadn't been. Why!? So, even in the face of evidence, accounts are rarely closed.
> I get the feeling that Lichess hopes that the warnings they give are enough of a deterrent themselves - For example when we abort a game because an opponent has failed to start, we automatically receive a warning - I've had a few of those ones to be sure, but my account's certainly still open.
>
> I think it's just one of those things - cheaters, smurfing, sandbaggers will always exist - the community is just too large to really be able to take any significant action against it I reckon. The only resolve I can think of is what I was saying regarding casual game sandbaggers in post#1, but apart from that, I'm lost for ideas. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of players on this site are fair minded people. - I was previously using another popular chess site, but the amount of trollin etc going on really seemed to spoil the whole experience. Thankfully, Lichess attracts far less unsporting behaviour. So that's a plus.
>
> sorry about the long reply - I just can't seem to keep the posts short. More of a blog really isn't it.
@Save-Ferris said in #12:

Honestly your calm and thoughtful response has given me a bit of clarity. I probably jumped the gun getting upset with lichess. I think you are correct on your assessment and maybe the community will have to accept this for the time being

@CasualPlays said in #27:
> @Save-Ferris
> I don’t want a rating on this site. I like being unrated. For me, casual play allows me to just play chess and not care about the other guy’s rating or my own.
>
> Why should I be forced into rank play if I don’t want to be ranked? I just want to play chess.
>
> Want to play against players that are definitely around your level of skill? Play ranked. Casual is just that - not serious. The ranking of the player doesn’t matter, it may not actually be their level of skill.
>
> Think of it this way. Casual chess is like going to a chess club and playing random people. They could be any rating. The rating next to their name is entirely irrelevant. The randomness of playing strength is a feature that comes with casual play.

Hmmmm......
D'you know what - I think everything you just said makes perfect sense, and has actually provided me with the answer I've been looking for regarding this whole matter. You have literally just resolved the issue for me, in that there isn't an issue in the first place!
I think I completely overlooked the actual meaning of the word "casual".
Yes. I'll see the casual games now as a random lottery instead of how I have been approaching it, and if I want a more fairly matched game, then simply switch over to the rated ones. Simple isn't it. Obvious actually.

I think what had thrown me was that when playing casual games, opponents still appear with a rating that can only have resulted from playing a rated game - so I've been assuming that it should carry the same weight -- but of course, like you said, casual playing is more about just having a bit of fun and not caring too much (or at all) about things like ratings. -- so it's no surprise that the ratings a lot of the time have such a wide margin of error.
There's probably still a certain degree of accuracy within a particular range though, like maybe +-500 or something - but yes, still somewhat of a lottery.

Good. That's cleared that up then. Thankyou!

(this all sounds very sarcastic doesn't it. It's not though!)