The fake 1500s

There seem to be a lot of fake 1500s around when you play casual games. I've just played one who's played a total of 2230 rapid games, not a single one of them rated! As a consequence:

1. This individual still has a provisional rating of "1500?"
2. This individual wins 79% of their games.

This is not a one off - I've come across others who still have a provisional rating despite playing hundreds if not thousands of games. I think there is a case for the pairings being adjusted even in unrated casual games so that your win rate averages out at 50%, otherwise it's unfair on the opponents. Someone who's really a 1800 or 1900 shouldn't be allowed in the 1500 pool - the ratings are there to pair people of similar ability.

You are correct. The casual lobby is littered with players that are sandbagging or out right cheating. I recently lost to a player with a 1029? provisional rating. Their current rapid stats...

365 Games
345 Wins, 5 Draws and only 15 Losses. That is a 95% win rate
Only 3 rated games.
Longest win streak 87 games
Current win streak: 82 games

I reported the player and blocked them. Hopefully, Lichess can figure out a way to address this issue.

I also posted this to the Forum a few weeks ago. I am not sure that report submissions are actually getting through to the moderators or not. https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/cheat-detection-system-question?page=1

First, provisional ratings aren't really ratings. Ignore them until the question mark has gone. Some players don't want a rating and that's why they play all casual games.
Second, players who play mainly casual games are, by definition, less likely to be accurately rated because they're putting less data into their rating. But also, casual players may often be inconsistent because they're a "drunk account" or an account to play random games on mobile on the bus or whatever. If you want to play meaningfully rated opponents, play rated games.

Bit of a diversion, but my blitz rating is 1629, meaning I'm better than 62% of players on lichess, but I've won 26% of my rated games. That doesn't just happen in the casual pool!

Also- if you think somebody is genuinely manipulating rating, report them.

@Gingersquirrelnuts said ^

If you want to play meaningfully rated opponents, play rated games.

I play a mixture of rated and unrated, usually about one or two rated per day and maybe twice that number unrated. I play unrated to give me more freedom to experiment, and I play rated to keep track of my progress. I'd like to think it's possible to pair people of similar ability even if they're not playing a lot of rated games...

Bit of a diversion, but my blitz rating is 1629, meaning I'm better than 62% of players on lichess, but I've won 26% of my rated games. That doesn't just happen in the casual pool!

Ummmm.... I thought I'd left those shenanigans behind when I closed my chess.com account!

It's not shenanigans, it's that I play most of my chess in tournaments where most of the players are much stronger than me. That's something to be relaxed about, and way more fun than playing lots of games I'll easily win and learn nothing from.

@Gingersquirrelnuts said ^

It's not shenanigans

By shenanigans I meant the fake low ratings, not what you were doing! On chess.com I just got tired of the amazingly sharp 800s and 900s who somehow never progressed despite their use of stockfish prodigious talent.

this seems silly. casual games are not taken seriously by most people and they are where you try new ideas out. you should put your effort into rated games if you are into that and you should just play for the fun of it and take more risks in casual games. It's like saying it's cheating to play wiffle ball with my kids before playing in a softball league game.

@QuesoConBrio said ^

this seems silly. casual games are not taken seriously by most people and they are where you try new ideas out. you should put your effort into rated games if you are into that and you should just play for the fun of it and take more risks in casual games. It's like saying it's cheating to play wiffle ball with my kids before playing in a softball league game.

I understand that casual online chess games are more relaxed and a good place to experiment, but I don’t think that means the rules should become optional. If players are allowed to cheat in casual games, it lowers the overall quality and integrity of the game. You can play casually, try unusual openings, take risks, and have fun while still playing honestly.

I also don’t think the wiffle ball analogy really fits. Playing wiffle ball with your kids is a fundamentally different game with different expectations and rules. A casual online chess game is still chess—you’re simply playing without the competitive pressure of a rated game. There’s a difference between playing casually and deciding that the rules no longer matter.

@mcoplea said ^

this seems silly. casual games are not taken seriously by most people and they are where you try new ideas out. you should put your effort into rated games if you are into that and you should just play for the fun of it and take more risks in casual games. It's like saying it's cheating to play wiffle ball with my kids before playing in a so...

I don't see where actual cheating is described in any of this. I may have misunderstood in thinking the idea of getting a ton of practice in via unrated games is being seen as a kind of cheating. Actually cheating, ie using an engine or some other illegal aid, in a casual game is obviously a bad thing.

@QuesoConBrio said ^

I don't see where actual cheating is described in any of this.

I agree, it's not cheating, but it's gaming the system. Ratings allow people of similar skill to be paired. It's no fun being paired against fake 1500s, which is why I've stopped playing casual games. Given few people already play casual (it can take a long time to be paired even if you're playing blitz or 10+0 rapid), this will just kill the casual lobby. Who wants to be destroyed by someone who refuses to play their equals and constantly look for lesser opponents?