crime and punishment

saya812 edited

Hello!
I registered my son a year ago; he was 6 years old at the time. Naturally, he was just starting his chess journey. Now he's seven. I logged into the game and saw that he was there, making a move and then resigning. Naturally, I called him and asked what was going on. He said that "it was too hard for him and he decided to lower his rating to make it easier to play." Naturally, I explained that firstly, it was stupid, and secondly, it was also "illegal"... Okay, he stopped doing it.

A few hours passed, and he got a notification: "Player violated the rules." And a restriction on playing rated games. I appealed, apologized, and explained that it was just a silly thing, not intentional cheating. But no, they said that's it, make a new account with a new email...

Explain to me please, what's the point of such a harsh punishment? Destroy his entire journey from the start...

Hello! I registered my son a year ago; he was 6 years old at the time. Naturally, he was just starting his chess journey. Now he's seven. I logged into the game and saw that he was there, making a move and then resigning. Naturally, I called him and asked what was going on. He said that "it was too hard for him and he decided to lower his rating to make it easier to play." Naturally, I explained that firstly, it was stupid, and secondly, it was also "illegal"... Okay, he stopped doing it. A few hours passed, and he got a notification: "Player violated the rules." And a restriction on playing rated games. I appealed, apologized, and explained that it was just a silly thing, not intentional cheating. But no, they said that's it, make a new account with a new email... Explain to me please, what's the point of such a harsh punishment? Destroy his entire journey from the start...

Gingersquirrelnuts

If he's been manipulating his rating (by losing games deliberately), surely it makes more sense for him to start with a new account rather than continue with one with a false rating? Seems about the least worst outcome to me.

saya812 edited

What's the point? He dropped his rating in bullet by 246 points (1750->1504). I'm actually against him playing in that "bullet" at all – a rating based on winning on time is very questionable. But he plays in other types (about 15 of them - 2563 blitz game, rapid, clasic, horde and other), and he has a rating in all of them. 14 days of playtime, 19 minutes of TV. And the main thing is that this is precisely where you could watch how he developed in chess.

ShineOnMeCrazyD

What's the point? He dropped his rating in bullet by 246 points (1750->1504).

If his 1750 rating was stable then when he loses 250 points intentionally it means he's underrated and the 1500 rated opponents will face someone who is actually stronger and if they lose they will lose more rating than appropriate. Eventually this also causes an imbalance in the rating system.

> What's the point? He dropped his rating in bullet by 246 points (1750->1504). If his 1750 rating was stable then when he loses 250 points intentionally it means he's underrated and the 1500 rated opponents will face someone who is actually stronger and if they lose they will lose more rating than appropriate. Eventually this also causes an imbalance in the rating system.

richmond45

If he purposely lose rating it is called sandbagging which is purposely loading rating and not allowed it happened to me on my other accounts

richmond45

I hope it helps

richmond45

@ShineOnMeCrazyD said in #4:

If his 1750 rating was stable then when he loses 250 points intentionally it means he's underrated and the 1500 rated opponents will face someone who is actually stronger and if they lose they will lose more rating than appropriate. Eventually this also causes an imbalance in the rating system.
That is true too

@ShineOnMeCrazyD said in #4: > If his 1750 rating was stable then when he loses 250 points intentionally it means he's underrated and the 1500 rated opponents will face someone who is actually stronger and if they lose they will lose more rating than appropriate. Eventually this also causes an imbalance in the rating system. That is true too

g6firste6second

Hello! Naturally, I called him and asked what was going on. He said that "it was too hard for him and he decided to lower his rating to make it easier to play." Naturally, I explained

take him to the local chess scene and your son can make a few bucks cause he is a natural born hustler

> Hello! Naturally, I called him and asked what was going on. He said that "it was too hard for him and he decided to lower his rating to make it easier to play." Naturally, I explained take him to the local chess scene and your son can make a few bucks cause he is a natural born hustler

mcgoves edited

@saya812 said in #1:

A few hours passed, and he got a notification: "Player violated the rules." And a restriction on playing rated games. I appealed, apologized, and explained that it was just a silly thing, not intentional cheating. But no, they said that's it, make a new account with a new email...

I don't understand this part. Usually, the player isn't notified of the restriction; the ban is hidden from them, and they are left to discover it on their own (or continue playing, oblivious).

I wonder if @saya812's son is being pranked.

@saya812 said in #1: > A few hours passed, and he got a notification: "Player violated the rules." And a restriction on playing rated games. I appealed, apologized, and explained that it was just a silly thing, not intentional cheating. But no, they said that's it, make a new account with a new email... I don't understand this part. Usually, the player isn't notified of the restriction; the ban is hidden from them, and they are left to discover it on their own (or continue playing, oblivious). I wonder if @saya812's son is being pranked.

tpr

"a restriction on playing rated games" "harsh punishment" * That is neither harsh, nor a punishment. He manipulated the rating system, so he now plays without the rating system. Makes sense. It is a protective measure, no punishment.

"make a new account with a new email" * That makes no sense at all. So you can do whatever you want and then a new account with a new email cleans it all.

"this also causes an imbalance in the rating system" * Not really. The rating system is stable as it is and readjusts itself quickly. If this were true, each player losing 3 games in a row should be banned from playing for 24 hours to prevent a tilt that would imbalance the rating system. It is easy to lose 250 rating by having slept badly or consumed alcohol. If imbalance of the rating system were a concern, then intentional or unintentional should not matter.

"a restriction on playing rated games" "harsh punishment" * That is neither harsh, nor a punishment. He manipulated the rating system, so he now plays without the rating system. Makes sense. It is a protective measure, no punishment. "make a new account with a new email" * That makes no sense at all. So you can do whatever you want and then a new account with a new email cleans it all. "this also causes an imbalance in the rating system" * Not really. The rating system is stable as it is and readjusts itself quickly. If this were true, each player losing 3 games in a row should be banned from playing for 24 hours to prevent a tilt that would imbalance the rating system. It is easy to lose 250 rating by having slept badly or consumed alcohol. If imbalance of the rating system were a concern, then intentional or unintentional should not matter.

Your network blocks the Lichess assets!