I would argue that Lichess does not frown on this like they should. I called out a clear sandbagger or "smurf" and was threatened by lichess to remove my chatting privilege's. My message? "Smurf"
@TooMuchIPA said in #11:
> I would argue that Lichess does not frown on this like they should. I called out a clear sandbagger or "smurf" and was threatened by lichess to remove my chatting privilege's. My message? "Smurf"
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 trolling 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.
> I would argue that Lichess does not frown on this like they should. I called out a clear sandbagger or "smurf" and was threatened by lichess to remove my chatting privilege's. My message? "Smurf"
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 trolling 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.
@infinite2009 said in #7:
> @Save-Ferris, ain't your posts too long to read? (especially for a lazy dude for me)
> I think you need to compress the posts.
> (pls don't reply with a long post, I am not ready to read it)
You are a lazy guy,huh?
> @Save-Ferris, ain't your posts too long to read? (especially for a lazy dude for me)
> I think you need to compress the posts.
> (pls don't reply with a long post, I am not ready to read it)
You are a lazy guy,huh?
@Save-Ferris said in #6:
>
> But my point is that I wonder how long this guy has been playing as a 1500. As it's got a question mark after it, it suggests that they've never played a rated game in this category - whether they're new to Lichess or indeed have been playing for years
>
I think this misunderstanding is at the heart of the issue, and I'll explain. You wrote "whether they're new to Lichess or indeed have been playing for years ". The truth is that... A person can be new to lichess AND have been playing for years. A new player to lichess is automatically assigned a 1500 rating, with a question mark because it is provisional. But just because they are new to lichess does not mean they are new to chess. There are other servers, or perhaps they played a lot of OTB games in the past. I would be a perfect example of this. I made my account a year or two ago, but I have been playing chess on and off for about 25 years on different servers, and lots of OTB tournaments, so I am no rookie. Judging by our rapid ratings if we would have been paired when I was new to lichess, the 1500? rating wouldnt reflect my 2200 lichess rapid ability, and you'd have probably lost and then thought I was a sandbagger, whereas the truth is that I simply am an experienced player who just created a lichess account. There is also the additional possibility, those people who made a new lichess profile for whatever reason (got previously banned, didnt like something about their old account, or whatever) and again their 1500? doesnt represent their actual ability. I'm sure if you play those 1500? opponents you'll also get games where the person is no where near 1500 strength and you get an easy win. My aunt is a perfect example of this. She made an account, played a few games and lost them all because she basically knows how to move the pieces and thats it, and then she stopped playing. Maybe you should not have the +/-500 spread, as it will invite those 1500? players who might be far stronger than you hoped for.
>
> But my point is that I wonder how long this guy has been playing as a 1500. As it's got a question mark after it, it suggests that they've never played a rated game in this category - whether they're new to Lichess or indeed have been playing for years
>
I think this misunderstanding is at the heart of the issue, and I'll explain. You wrote "whether they're new to Lichess or indeed have been playing for years ". The truth is that... A person can be new to lichess AND have been playing for years. A new player to lichess is automatically assigned a 1500 rating, with a question mark because it is provisional. But just because they are new to lichess does not mean they are new to chess. There are other servers, or perhaps they played a lot of OTB games in the past. I would be a perfect example of this. I made my account a year or two ago, but I have been playing chess on and off for about 25 years on different servers, and lots of OTB tournaments, so I am no rookie. Judging by our rapid ratings if we would have been paired when I was new to lichess, the 1500? rating wouldnt reflect my 2200 lichess rapid ability, and you'd have probably lost and then thought I was a sandbagger, whereas the truth is that I simply am an experienced player who just created a lichess account. There is also the additional possibility, those people who made a new lichess profile for whatever reason (got previously banned, didnt like something about their old account, or whatever) and again their 1500? doesnt represent their actual ability. I'm sure if you play those 1500? opponents you'll also get games where the person is no where near 1500 strength and you get an easy win. My aunt is a perfect example of this. She made an account, played a few games and lost them all because she basically knows how to move the pieces and thats it, and then she stopped playing. Maybe you should not have the +/-500 spread, as it will invite those 1500? players who might be far stronger than you hoped for.
@Le_Patzer83 said in #14:
> I think this misunderstanding is at the heart of the issue, and I'll explain. You wrote "whether they're new to Lichess or indeed have been playing for years ". The truth is that... A person can be new to lichess AND have been playing for years...
...
Hey there,
yeh, sorry- what I meant was whether they were new to lichess or had been playing for years on lichess (hence my point about the increasing anomaly in the perceived rating the longer that player has been playing casually on this site without playing rated ones). - yes, I should have been clearer.
in response to your points:
(and sorry it's a bit on the long side! just wanted to make sure to be thorough).
(1) experienced players joining lichess, automatically being assigned a 1500? rating, reflecting an ability potentially way below their actual level, therefore not sandbagging in this instance.
True, true - but I think in this case this doesn't exacerbate the issue to much. When the 1500? rated player actually is a newcomer to the site it potentially makes the game more edgy (in a good way) because of the whole ambiguity of it - and pretty quickly, within 4 or 5 rated games this provisional rating will have levelled out to something more accurate anyway. Unless of course, those newcomers only ever play casual games, which is basically my point in the initial post.
Hey, maybe there should be a rule that when we first join the site, we should HAVE to play those few initial games as rated - that would pretty much eliminate this part of the issue altogether, save for the relatively small amount of games being played that are new players' first few games, but like I was saying, those ones can be even more fun anyway. The ratings become significantly disproportionate though when the general practise is to stick to casual without doing rated. Very quickly we end up in the situation where those experienced chess players that are newcomers to the site aren't newcomers anymore, yet still show "1500?". If I then click "Quick Pairing" then the game is MORE OFTEN unbalanced than it should be, as opposed to if the "?" suffix actually meant it was a newcomer to the site. (by the way "more often" is capitalised only cos there's no italic option!).
(2) people closing and re-opening their accounts, hence starting afresh with the 1500? again.
Well, I don't know - 16,000 - 20,000 or so players at any given time. Sure - people definitely do this, but just how many? - a very small percentage surely? I can't imagine it would be a significant enough amount to amplify the already existing problem too noticeably in this case.
(3) some newcomers to lichess having nowhere near the strength of the 1500? provisional rating. eg, newcomers to chess itself, people just knowing the rules, etc.
- my main concern is when it's the other way round after repeatedly feeling out of my depth on the board, sometimes game after game after game - when my ratings are supposedly similar to the opponents! I'd expect this to happen a certain amount of the time - just not as often as it does. This is what brings me to make a post in the first place, and trying to pose some sort of solution.
(4) maybe I shouldn't have that +-500 spread, which would eliminate playing the 1500? rated ones.
It would, yes, but I like the lottery of the whole thing - it keeps me more on my toes. I don't just want to play people of the same ability as me, - I enjoy the challenge of playing someone way better than me, cos it's a real pay-off if I win. I won against a 2300 the other day, and I haven't stopped talking about it since. Of course, no one's interested about it, but it's exciting for me nevertheless and makes it feel like me playing chess isn't a lost cause! and that maybe I'm progressing too!? Saying that though, I like to take a step back sometimes and have a more relaxed game with an easier opponent. Why not. Only problem is the disproportionate amount of clearly inaccurate ratings of the lower rated players.
By the way, in my initial post I'm not just referring to the 1500? players, but any of us that only play casual without playing rated games - whatever the rating. (In that the rating will invariably become more inaccurate as we progress through time as we improve).
(I just read all of this nonsense back before sending it, and realised that it might read as a bit defensive or something? don't know why, not my intentions at all - I blame the insomnia - and I blame the insomnia on chess!)
Cheers my friend.
> I think this misunderstanding is at the heart of the issue, and I'll explain. You wrote "whether they're new to Lichess or indeed have been playing for years ". The truth is that... A person can be new to lichess AND have been playing for years...
...
Hey there,
yeh, sorry- what I meant was whether they were new to lichess or had been playing for years on lichess (hence my point about the increasing anomaly in the perceived rating the longer that player has been playing casually on this site without playing rated ones). - yes, I should have been clearer.
in response to your points:
(and sorry it's a bit on the long side! just wanted to make sure to be thorough).
(1) experienced players joining lichess, automatically being assigned a 1500? rating, reflecting an ability potentially way below their actual level, therefore not sandbagging in this instance.
True, true - but I think in this case this doesn't exacerbate the issue to much. When the 1500? rated player actually is a newcomer to the site it potentially makes the game more edgy (in a good way) because of the whole ambiguity of it - and pretty quickly, within 4 or 5 rated games this provisional rating will have levelled out to something more accurate anyway. Unless of course, those newcomers only ever play casual games, which is basically my point in the initial post.
Hey, maybe there should be a rule that when we first join the site, we should HAVE to play those few initial games as rated - that would pretty much eliminate this part of the issue altogether, save for the relatively small amount of games being played that are new players' first few games, but like I was saying, those ones can be even more fun anyway. The ratings become significantly disproportionate though when the general practise is to stick to casual without doing rated. Very quickly we end up in the situation where those experienced chess players that are newcomers to the site aren't newcomers anymore, yet still show "1500?". If I then click "Quick Pairing" then the game is MORE OFTEN unbalanced than it should be, as opposed to if the "?" suffix actually meant it was a newcomer to the site. (by the way "more often" is capitalised only cos there's no italic option!).
(2) people closing and re-opening their accounts, hence starting afresh with the 1500? again.
Well, I don't know - 16,000 - 20,000 or so players at any given time. Sure - people definitely do this, but just how many? - a very small percentage surely? I can't imagine it would be a significant enough amount to amplify the already existing problem too noticeably in this case.
(3) some newcomers to lichess having nowhere near the strength of the 1500? provisional rating. eg, newcomers to chess itself, people just knowing the rules, etc.
- my main concern is when it's the other way round after repeatedly feeling out of my depth on the board, sometimes game after game after game - when my ratings are supposedly similar to the opponents! I'd expect this to happen a certain amount of the time - just not as often as it does. This is what brings me to make a post in the first place, and trying to pose some sort of solution.
(4) maybe I shouldn't have that +-500 spread, which would eliminate playing the 1500? rated ones.
It would, yes, but I like the lottery of the whole thing - it keeps me more on my toes. I don't just want to play people of the same ability as me, - I enjoy the challenge of playing someone way better than me, cos it's a real pay-off if I win. I won against a 2300 the other day, and I haven't stopped talking about it since. Of course, no one's interested about it, but it's exciting for me nevertheless and makes it feel like me playing chess isn't a lost cause! and that maybe I'm progressing too!? Saying that though, I like to take a step back sometimes and have a more relaxed game with an easier opponent. Why not. Only problem is the disproportionate amount of clearly inaccurate ratings of the lower rated players.
By the way, in my initial post I'm not just referring to the 1500? players, but any of us that only play casual without playing rated games - whatever the rating. (In that the rating will invariably become more inaccurate as we progress through time as we improve).
(I just read all of this nonsense back before sending it, and realised that it might read as a bit defensive or something? don't know why, not my intentions at all - I blame the insomnia - and I blame the insomnia on chess!)
Cheers my friend.
Maybe use the lobby instead of quick pairing when you want to have a nice evenly matched game, so you can avoid the 1500? players and have a say in who you play. Then later on when you’re in the mood for it to be more of a crapshoot where you might get paired with a fish (someone with an inflated rating) or a sandbagger or any of the other possibilities we discussed, you can roll the dice and quick pair.
What is more frustrating is what covid has done to OTB ratings. I just played an OTB tournament and I swear every 11 year old kid there was hugely underrated. Us adults haven’t improved as much during covid and suddenly what should be an easy win pairing wise turns into a difficult game. We actually had a 2300 uscf strength player lose to a 1200 rated kid who was massively under rated during a tournament in early October. This was the most extreme example but there were many more like it.
What is more frustrating is what covid has done to OTB ratings. I just played an OTB tournament and I swear every 11 year old kid there was hugely underrated. Us adults haven’t improved as much during covid and suddenly what should be an easy win pairing wise turns into a difficult game. We actually had a 2300 uscf strength player lose to a 1200 rated kid who was massively under rated during a tournament in early October. This was the most extreme example but there were many more like it.
re: @Le_Patzer83 in #16:
yeah, that's exactly what I've been doing - only thing is... the same issue applies to any rating on the casual game if they never do any rated ones - So essentially I'm picking equally matched players, but far from winning 50% of the time, I'm only winning 25% of the time - which just doesn't add up. Either a large proportion of people are significantly underrated - OR - I've just suddenly gotten twice as bad.
(sudden realisation hits me!)
And yeah, the whole covid thing - for me I've always wanted to get good at chess (whatever that means) - and being a musician, all my work completely stopped, and it's been difficult trying to kickstart it all again, almost have to start from scratch -- BUT, it has given me the opportunity to finally get round to the chess thing - and I'm really into it. So for me, chess-wise, it's been a plus (every cloud... etc etc). Great that this site exists - for years I was playing a computer, and not getting anywhere. Not that I'm a good player yet - 1800 lichess - I don't know what that is in the real world, but it's a good start. Gotta get more openings practised, and get doing more puzzles. When I get the courage I'll actually join a real club somewhere. Not quite ready yet though!
Cheers mate
yeah, that's exactly what I've been doing - only thing is... the same issue applies to any rating on the casual game if they never do any rated ones - So essentially I'm picking equally matched players, but far from winning 50% of the time, I'm only winning 25% of the time - which just doesn't add up. Either a large proportion of people are significantly underrated - OR - I've just suddenly gotten twice as bad.
(sudden realisation hits me!)
And yeah, the whole covid thing - for me I've always wanted to get good at chess (whatever that means) - and being a musician, all my work completely stopped, and it's been difficult trying to kickstart it all again, almost have to start from scratch -- BUT, it has given me the opportunity to finally get round to the chess thing - and I'm really into it. So for me, chess-wise, it's been a plus (every cloud... etc etc). Great that this site exists - for years I was playing a computer, and not getting anywhere. Not that I'm a good player yet - 1800 lichess - I don't know what that is in the real world, but it's a good start. Gotta get more openings practised, and get doing more puzzles. When I get the courage I'll actually join a real club somewhere. Not quite ready yet though!
Cheers mate
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.
Another reason why this issue occurs is that some people may be unaware of their real strength in specific time control. Here is my story:
After creating my Lichess account, I played only 3+0 rated Blitz and my rating was about 1450. Then I read that to improve my chess I should play longer games. So, I began playing casual Rapid. Based on my Blitz rating, I chose opponents from 1500-1600 rating range. Despite regarding them as slightly stronger players than me, I surprisingly had more wins than loses. One day I finally decided to start playing rated Rapid 10+0. My first non-provisional rating was 1830...
Only later I read that there is a rating gap between different time controls and 1450 in Blitz does not correspond to 1450 in Rapid.
After creating my Lichess account, I played only 3+0 rated Blitz and my rating was about 1450. Then I read that to improve my chess I should play longer games. So, I began playing casual Rapid. Based on my Blitz rating, I chose opponents from 1500-1600 rating range. Despite regarding them as slightly stronger players than me, I surprisingly had more wins than loses. One day I finally decided to start playing rated Rapid 10+0. My first non-provisional rating was 1830...
Only later I read that there is a rating gap between different time controls and 1450 in Blitz does not correspond to 1450 in Rapid.
@Chess_NL said in #19:
> Another reason why this issue occurs is that some people may be unaware of their real strength in specific time control.
Hey man,
yeah I hear you. Same thing with me - my blitz is exactly 1500, but my rapid is 1804 I think. It was the other way round for me - I started off playing the 10+0 games and got to whatever rating, and then thought I'd try my luck with the blitz - and I just couldn't win a game at all, in fact I initially went down to about 1350 - which was a disappointing revelation for me, but a good wake up call just when I was beginning to think I was getting good. So, while you were unaware of your strength, I was equally unaware of my weakness!! A lot of work needed here I've realised.
I think my point about the under-ratings relates specifically to individual time controls, - in this case I've just been playing rapid for a while. I haven't played blitz for months anyway - I like spending a bit more time deliberating (basically not versed enough with tactics and openings to be able to move so quickly - yet!).
Thanks mate,
anon...
> Another reason why this issue occurs is that some people may be unaware of their real strength in specific time control.
Hey man,
yeah I hear you. Same thing with me - my blitz is exactly 1500, but my rapid is 1804 I think. It was the other way round for me - I started off playing the 10+0 games and got to whatever rating, and then thought I'd try my luck with the blitz - and I just couldn't win a game at all, in fact I initially went down to about 1350 - which was a disappointing revelation for me, but a good wake up call just when I was beginning to think I was getting good. So, while you were unaware of your strength, I was equally unaware of my weakness!! A lot of work needed here I've realised.
I think my point about the under-ratings relates specifically to individual time controls, - in this case I've just been playing rapid for a while. I haven't played blitz for months anyway - I like spending a bit more time deliberating (basically not versed enough with tactics and openings to be able to move so quickly - yet!).
Thanks mate,
anon...
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.