Chess.com not doing anything about sandbagging

I'm writing this here out of exasperation that Chess.com refuses to do anything about the Smurfing problem. I encounter and report at least half a dozen of these players per week, but their accounts remain active.

As just one example, the user "[public accusations not allowed -- MS]" has a bullet rating of 100. Out of the 400 bullet games he's played, he's won 227 against people rated 1,000+, 109 vs 1,500+ and 25 games vs 2,000+. He's even beat a few 2,300 and 2,400s!

Again, this is supposedly a 100 elo player who's beating people with elos more than 20x higher than his.
I used to be able to reach out to chess.com support via email and, to their credit, they would ban these players. But now that they've removed the ability to interact with them by email, these sandbaggers are being allowed to run amuck and ruin the experience for the rest of us. Clearly, Chess.com doesn't care about the sandbagging problem on their platform.

They think their Glicko like systems work for lower rated players. They don't. You can't speak a language until you understand the basics. So, you can't jack up someone's rating hundreds of points and then demolish them. This doesn't work, and it messes up the rating system. So, lowering your rating so you move from level 1 to level 2 to level 3 to level 4 and so on and so on is the ONLY way to adequately correct their wrong.

The consequence of this is what you are complaining about. It isn't really sandbagging in the sense you are trying to get a prize or money, but the effect is disguised as the same thing.

What they ought to do is stop with this 5 game quota, stop with jacking up rating points, and simply put people in a rating bracket after they win against a bot at a chosen level. If you choose 1200, you immediately play 1200. A win is then 10 points or so and you grow incrementally.

Another thing they need to stop doing is ping-ponging between easy idiot wins and baffling confusing losses. This is how they are trying to place us in the right rating range, not 1, not 100, not 10, not 90, not 20, not 80, not 30, not 70, etc... This unnecessary way of pairing us means we play USELESS games and the pairings only bring frustration.

But they won't listen, they will defend their stupid formulas because they work for 2000+ players.

Please don't publicly report suspected abuse.

That said, the account is closed now

The player got a low rating and then exclusively played unrated. It has nothing to do with Glicko.

"Martin_Stahl wrote: NoRoomForAnotherMove wrote:

They think their Glicko like systems work for lower rated players. ...

The player got a low rating and then exclusively played unrated. It has nothing to do with Glicko."

Your reading comprehension is terrible. I am not talking about an isolated case. I am talking about the way the site is set up to give us ratings. Learn to read.

And another stupid thing is we can't quote properly until we play 5 games. That just encourages people to throw 5 games so they can post and their rating will be 200. Stop catering to this sandbagging effect.

Your post had nothing to do with the specifics of the topic. I explained that the low rating and Glicko wasn't pertinent to the issue presented.

"Your post had nothing to do with the specifics of the topic. I explained that the low rating and Glicko wasn't pertinent to the issue presented."

You don't see these parts in the OP?

"Chess.com refuses to do anything about the Smurfing problem"

"As just one example, "

This indicates the thread has to do with a systemic problem. IT IS NOT ISOLATED. Do you need to take an English reading course?

The problem actually wasn't about rating system and said nothing about the rating system, just that the player was supposedly 100. The 100 wasn't a problem of the rating system.

Have you considered switching to de-caffeinated coffee?

It might change how you respond to people, and how they respond to you.

just wanted to say thanks, Martin.

time after time, you remain polite, while dealing with challenging people.

Good on ya!

fr Martin how do you deal with these mentally disabled

A 100 played a 2000 was one assertion. The 2000 should be allowed to abort this without penalty. If they choose to play, they choose to play. How aren't you seeing this as a rating system issue?

I call out BS. You should try it too instead of kowtowing to a faulty rating system.

He doesn't. He just says, "We are not at fault, you are."

Fact is you can be 200 easily on this site and take forever to get to your true rating, just like you can be 1300 and beat 1300s. It depends on the pairings you get. I'd say 1100 is a big discrepancy and if you can't see the problem, well there's nothing we can do more.

The 2000 could have aborted. It was unrated. In normal circumstances, they wouldn't be paired together. So either the 2000 accepted the open seek or one of them directly challenged the other.

That doesn't matter then. The title was "Chess.com not doing anything about sandbagging". The example given may not have been a good example which is why I wasn't referring to it. I was addressing the topic which had to do with "sandbagging".

Given a low rating, it is very difficult to bring your rating back up because of the sandbaggers.