Playing Team Matches

There has been an issue now on chess.com for ages where players join chess.com and then jump straight into team matches with 0 games played.

Myself and many others have faced the issue where we have joined team matches only to be faced with a player of 1200 rating while they know they are much higher rated than this otb.

Some teams even do this deliberately where they get new members to join the site then wait for months to join team matches.

While at the moment this isn't against site rules I believe it to be totally unethical.

I have been placed against so many 1200 players who have never played a normal game (rated / tournament) and so when they play they are so much better than 1200 ...

This site works with a glicko rating system so if they played 5 rated games their rating would adjust automatically when the games have finished.

I would like it putting in place that NO players can join team matches unless they have played a minimum of 5 rated games against other members on chess.com/.

As it is I refuse to play a rated game against anyone 1200 because I have no idea of their true rating.

Some people believe their rating is just a number and don't care if they play someone with 0 games played which is fine it is down to them but team games are different.

What do others think about this?

I definitely agree with you.  My score is low enough without playing someone who really has the ability to play chess with a much higher score than 1200.  I play in a lot of tournaments 1200 and under.  I lose all the time to these players who haven't played any rated games before the tournament games.

That is a very good point Donna, can you present this through the help section as it would be an outstanding idea as everyone that plays in team matches would be rated accordingly.

This is why I posted it in the site suggestions because I dunno how n=viable it would be for the programmers to put in place. It is something which is definitely needed because I have seen so many people tell me of this issue.

I know the problem. In another site I had a rating over 2300 and played in a tournament with a new member. I lost and my rating droped dramatical. Today he is higher rated and me, and it took a while, but now my rating is over 2400. I think the rating-system is better there, anyway. Here is the rating-system a joke. By mistake I clicked on a link, and I was in a tournament. Tried to quit, but it started immediately. What to do, when I not had time for more games. I resign both at once. My rating droped something like 200 points, and he was high ranked. It doesn't matter, but how can a rating-system work so porly. I support the system that all members in a site must play a number of rating-games before they take part in a tournament.

I already mailed the site owners about this problem, then they bounce the problem to the tournament organiser, who should take out such players. This basically means they refuse to create a techno-solution for this, while i know that other chess sites actually do this.

But it really sucks when you play a tournament against a 1600 rated player that has 1200 starting ration in a <1250 tournament... You know in advance who will win round one... and you are never that one. 

Well on the one hand it is a bit unethical to pretend to be something youre not, on the other hand there is no tangible bounty at stake in any of this so its not too bad either. If anyone thinks theyre "outsmarting" people by resorting to such decietful tactics its their loss not ours, besides pretty soon their score will be closer to the truth. You cant lie in chess, and if you somehow do, well youre just an *ss. Personally i like the wake up loss of an untested 1200. It reminds me that i should be playing the player and not the rating. I also feel that all games SHOULD be rated. The whole "unrated" situation makes for people to sort of pick their matches to keep a rating average. I think a rating should be the sum of all your battles, the poorly planed, the ill calculated, the hastly executed and the obscenely blundered. Not just the evenly matched ones you play harder and more focused because you know they count. So i say play those never tested 1200s who really are 2100 OTB Kung Fu grandmaster supremes. I think its their loss.

Some of us on here work hard on our ratings and its not fair that people can just wreck something you have been working on for ages ...

Playing 5 rated games before joining in team matches means the new player is more likely to be closer to their own proper rating what they should be at ... 1 guy actually laughed at a 1200 player he thrashed because he had over 1900 otb and its just not acceptable.

I think that a 1900 OTB disguised as a 1200 who laughs at a real 1200 for losing a game is a big turd and has no honor at all. I think "chess karma" will catch up to that attitude pretty quick. I would totally council the defeated 1200 player into realizing that, much like in the outside world, people with limited skills like to take advantage on the less experieced to boost their egos. There is absolutely no growth in this behaiviour and it actually causes a false sense of superiority that usually slaps you right back in the face when tested in even conditions. Id like to see that 1900 SOB OTB play a 2600 master and see if he dares to even giggle. Stupid bullies. Theyre everywhere. Thats why i work hard on my game, not on my rating.

There's a lot of wisdom in what you say, peterwaffles. People who play chess just to embarrass less experienced players are a sad lot. 99% of the folks I've played with on chess.com would never dream of engaging in such foolishness, but alas, there are always those who feel a need to bring others down in order to feel like they're building themselves up. Anyone who arranges a team match along those lines is particularly pitiable.

Nonetheless, I can appreciate Donna's perspective on this. I always feel like I care more about my rating than I should, but like Donna, I do take pride in what I've achieved (however modest my accomplishments may be), and rating is a measurement of that (albeit probably not a very reliable one). If the chess.com admins are not going to institute a rule to prevent these FIDE Master types from impersonating chess noobs like myself, I guess if one is concerned about it, one should ask the tournament director if there's an "at least 5 games on chess.com" rule in place before entering a tourney.

In tournaments yes you CAN actually set it to only allowing members who have played x amount of games its team games I have the issue with because currently there is no provision for this:

Is it really such a big issue, just wondering....?

I mean, it's not like you have repeat offenders, somebody can do this only once, then he has a rating?

I cant remember running into this too often, and it's not so bad.. just a few days ago I drew against a 1200, lost 6 points, and won the return, gained 5, for a nett loss of 1. He gained about 170 or so....

I guess it depends on how much you value your playing experience really ... personally I have NO issue with playing higher rated players but much prefer to do so in unrated games not rated team games.

ratings can be deceiving...I had a 2200 player quit chess.com in the middle of a game and a 1700 player made an unacharacteristic mistake...that resulted in a 300 point bump in my rating..that I am sure will settle back down to a more realistic 1400 rating...and I did soundly beat a player with 1700 rating which makes me think he may have been in the same situation I was...I you need to play a lot of games to get a realistic rating..

YES this is my point you need to have played at least 5 to get an idea of what your rating is ... if you know you are a strong player and you join a team match at 1200 you KNOW your team are going to get cheap easy team points.

I dont this is not a big issue. But the real issue is (from the point of view of Team Admins) that, 1200 join team matches & and time out without making  a single move.

As a work around one would have to work the list of players of the opposite team to ensure ratings are accurate and ringers are let in along with refusing to lock your team in until it is fixed or abandon the team challenge.  Not a great thing to have to do for the larger teams I am sure and can become quite time consuming.  This however will not prevent them from putting the ringers back in if they are allowed to lock their team last..

B

This isn't always true ... a lot of players join the site then play no games till they get called up for a team game ... meanwhile they play live chess and have a rating of nearly 2000

Beester what I am suggesting here solves that issue for ALL super admin / admins on every single team ... if a setting is in place to only allow players to join matches after 5 rated games are played not only does it show that the player is willing to stick around but it also allows them a chance to regulate their rating approriately.

I agree... just trying to offer a suggestion until the programming is put in place to solve this issue permanently... :)