02 Mar 06
Originally posted by stevetoddAmen. It's about the chess, not the points.
[snip] Points are meaningless, what difference does it make? [snip] I know I will learn more from losing than winning and that's more important than gaining a few rating points.
If rating is your goal, I can recommend a site where you'll easily get over 2100, and quickly establish a floor of 1900 or higher. I rarely play anyone under 2000 there.
Of course, sandbagging can be a problem, especially when the class prizes are $10,000 and more. No evidence of sandbagging has been produced here (in this thread), but Grandmouster has revealed his confusion as to the meaning of the term.
GM, look around some more. Surely some of the banded tournaments have attracted a sandbagger or two. Perhaps you can go after them. My games against GalaxyShield were developing some interest when the skulls appeared, and my policy of making all skulls disappear needed implementation. I gained a few unearned points, and lost the experience of doing battle with a talented and original opponent. Consider yourself fortunate that you were able to carry the games to conclusion.
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by zebanoMostly because most everyone has no clue about having good ethics.
Mr. Todd, I had only given out 1 rec ever, but you just earned my second.
Mr. Mouse, it might be worth noting that no one has agreed with you. So in a nutshell, it sucks, lifes not fair, learn to deal with it.
They think this was ok, because "right" and "wrong" are what they see on TV, and the Movies.
I see sneaky, and misleading character is ok here.
Ok, ill tank my games, and play up in rating to get it back, should be fun. Maybe I'll get to play some of these great supporters of the moral wing here
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterFalse. While it certainly is unfair to you, to me and to everyone else who played GS during this time, life is not fair, and no one can garuntee that it will be.
Mostly because most everyone has no clue about having good ethics.
They think this was ok, because "right" and "wrong" are what they see on TV, and the Movies.
I see sneaky, and misleading character is ok here.
Ok, ill tank my games, and play up in rating to get it back, should be fun. Maybe I'll get to play some of these great supporters of the moral wing here
His approach was the best one available. Either he steals a few points here and there from people who have no chance against him (aka play 30-40 worthless games, and get free wins for his clans) or just resume playing who he was playing. The only other solution I can see is for him to quit the site (which he paid to join) because he had a real life problem. I hope I don't have to explain why this is a bad solution.
02 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by GrandmousterYes I get all my morals from the tv, but you must admit it was a great scene when Clint Eastwood uttered those immortal lines "I know what you're thinking, is he really a 1200 player or a 1700 sandbagger? In all this commotion, I really can't remember my rating. So you have to ask yourself, do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk? Do ya feel lucky, this 9 point calibre queen is the most powerful piece on the chessboard, go ahead punk, take my pawn and make my day!
Mostly because most everyone has no clue about having good ethics.
They think this was ok, because "right" and "wrong" are what they see on TV, and the Movies.
I see sneaky, and misleading character is ok here.
Ok, ill tank my games, and play up in rating to get it back, should be fun. Maybe I'll get to play some of these great supporters of the moral wing here
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterI'm happy to report that my responsibilities to my family (my ethics) have not required that I ignore games that will soon time out. Should this happen, however, I will absolutely refuse to pose as an 1100 player, even if my rating falls to that level. Doing so would be a clear violation of ethics.
Mostly because most everyone has no clue about having good ethics.
On the other hand, if you're making assumptions based on your opponents' ratings, and not checking their graphs, ... [flame deleted]
02 Mar 06
GMouster, aren't you leaving soon, 4 days I believe 🙂
You didn't check the rating graph. You're fault.
You lost the game. Really You're fault.
Learn from your lose and move on. All this could have been avoided if you had won, in which case you would complain because you didn't get any points.
4 days left 🙂
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterI don't know how many more ways this can be explained to you, Grandmouster. Take it from someone who has left the site for awhile and then came back. When you come back after a prolonged absence, you want to get your rating back up to your true level of ability as quickly as possible. No matter who you play, it isn't going to be fair. Either you play people around your true level of ability and steal a lot of points from them when you win, or you play people around your current rating and give them pratically no chance of winning. You may think that the former is the lesser of the two evils, but your clan mates may think differently. Pairing GS against you was better for your clan as a whole.
Mostly because most everyone has no clue about having good ethics.
They think this was ok, because "right" and "wrong" are what they see on TV, and the Movies.
I see sneaky, and misleading character is ok here.
Ok, ill tank my games, and play up in rating to get it back, should be fun. Maybe I'll get to play some of these great supporters of the moral wing here
So, we can conclude two things about you:
1. Despite what you say, the 4-digit number that appears next to your name is extremely important to you.
2. You care so much about that number that you put it ahead of your own clan's interests.
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by Natural Scienceno, the rating is more important to the sandbagger, who wanted to play 1600's while he was 1200.
I don't know how many more ways this can be explained to you, Grandmouster. Take it from someone who has left the site for awhile and then came back. When you come back after a prolonged absence, you want to get your rating back up to your true level of ability as quickly as possible. No matter who you play, it isn't going to be fair. Either you ...[text shortened]...
2. You care so much about that number that you put it ahead of your own clan's interests.
I see you aren't even reading the post, just puting your 2 cents in.
This person lost points on timeouts, then wanted to get them back in a hurry, by SANDBAGGING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this so hard for anyone to understand?
This is a the loophole in this sites rating system. The ratings can be minipulated anyway they want, by cheating, or losing games.
If sheild didnt care about ratings, he would have played 1200's (being a 1200 himself at the time) and worked his way back to 1600+
Instead, he devised a shortcut, by arrainging games with higher rated players.
I care about my ratings, of course, shouldn't anyone?
Shouldnt anyone care about their progress, based on real practice, and study, and not have points stolen by a devious player, who didnt want to get them the honest way.
No mater, ill end up at my true rating.
People who commit aggressions against the social, and personal moral code, find ways to lower their overall tone, and well being, and end up in a lowered state of existance.
02 Mar 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterI have been reading this thread, quietly, ever since you started it. Are you sure you've been reading it? Because at least two people have already tried to explain to you what sandbagging is. Here we go again. Sandbagging is the practice of deliberately maintaining a low rating so a player will be eligible for tournaments or sections far below his true playing strength, giving him an unfair advantage over those players. What you say GS should have done (played people down at his rating, and work his way back up over time) comes closer to fitting the definition of sandbagging than what he actually did. Besides, isn't it better for a player to get back to his true rating as quickly as possible?
no, the rating is more important to the sandbagger, who wanted to play 1600's while he was 1200.
I see you aren't even reading the post, just puting your 2 cents in.
This person lost points on timeouts, then wanted to get them back in a hurry, by SANDBAGGING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this so hard for anyone to understand?
This is a the loophole in th ...[text shortened]... ays to lower their overall tone, and well being, and end up in a lowered state of existance.
You're right about one thing, that ratings are pretty easy to manipulate. But it's not a perfect system, and it isn't meant to be. And there's really nothing that can be gained by manipulating ratings, at least not on this site. It doesn't make you play better chess. Another thing: it's clear from your latest post that you equate "rating" with "progress". Do you actually think that you're a better player when you're rated 1670 than you are when you're rated 1620?
If anyone made a mistake in this whole episode, it was your clan leader. Perhaps he should have discussed it with you first. But I guess he didn't take into account what a whiny pissant you'd be about it.
03 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by Natural ScienceWell, Gmouster does actually have a point, vain and petty as it might be. That definition is a narrow one that is conventionally accepted in chess circles. However, the true dictionary definition of sandbagging is:
I have been reading this thread, quietly, ever since you started it. Are you sure you've been reading it? Because at least two people have already tried to explain to you what sandbagging is. Here we go again. Sandbagging is the practice of deliberately maintaining a low rating so a player will be eligible for tournaments or sections far below his strength .
To hit with or as if with, a sandbag. To force by crude means.
Therefore, in the broad sense, sandbagging applies to any action where there is an unwitting victim caught by surprise. Gmouster is applying the broad definition.
Ratings are the currency of rhp and Gmouster feels he's been robbed of points, not money or tournament victory.
Gmouster simply wants us all to take a more chivalrous approach to a challenge by declaring our true strength to opponents when a challenge is offered. Beyond that, Gmouster is citing our dismissal of such a standard as symptomatic of a lack of ethics in society.
I am not defending Gmouster's approach as practical or necessary at this chess site. I am simply explaining his point.
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by RegicidalGame 1815880 was a clan game. GM's complaint should be with his Clan leader, who clearly matched him against a suitable opponent. If the Clan leader had matched him against a 1600 who is usually 2200, then he would be a victim. But, he was matched against a player at his level. That he made assumptions otherwise was his error.
Well, Gmouster does actually have a point, vain and petty as it might be. That definition is a narrow one that is conventionally accepted in chess circles. However, the true dictionary definition of sandbagging is:
To hit with or as if with, a sandbag. To force by crude means.
Therefore, in the broad sense, sandbagging applies to any action where there ...[text shortened]... er's approach as practical or necessary at this chess site. I am simply explaining his point.
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by WulebgrPersonally I think he should STFU and stop his bitchin'.
Game 1815880 was a clan game. GM's complaint should be with his Clan leader, who clearly matched him against a suitable opponent. If the Clan leader had matched him against a 1600 who is usually 2200, then he would be a victim. But, he was matched against a player at his level. That he made assumptions otherwise was his error.
But then again, I'm just a student who has seen his group win big in the uni elections tonight (had to fit that in, sorry!), so what would I know?!
03 Mar 06
1 edit
Maybe its a case of a misunderstood word. In my chess circles, when anyone mentions "sandbagger" They mean someone who, of course, lose's points, to play in money tourneys, as a "lower rated player"
But it could also mean anyone who is playing at a lower rating, but is really stronger.
This would cover many internet identities on chess playing sites.
Some people get their kicks by beating on weaker players, by using a lowered rating.
I know of a well known GM, who told me he played on a popular chess playing site, using a friends handle. They of course where suspious of this 1800 who was killing them, and they were 2200+.
I had someone message me on ICC, asking to use my handle, to play other people his rating( he was 2200, i was 1800) He wanted to "get back at them"
What i saw with this player in question, is he wanted to get his points back, and had no problem playing higher rated players, because he know he would win, and his 1200 rating would be 1600, in no time.
So for all the supporters of this "victim" i would suggest you take a long hard look at your own Personal Integrity and values, and see how your sense of "right" and "wrong" holds up.