Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

SUGGESTION: Tournaments should be played by accounts with some time in the site.

I'm not so good at chess, my current bullet score is 1300, so it's kinda fun to play that tournament. The thing is that the last three of them were won by smurfs accounts with 1700-2000 performance and 100% win rate, and among that, with even three of four games ahead. I don't know where's the fun on that, but it would be good to let participate accounts with a minimum activity in the site, for example, to avoid this kind of things.

I'm not so good at chess, my current bullet score is 1300, so it's kinda fun to play that tournament. The thing is that the last three of them were won by smurfs accounts with 1700-2000 performance and 100% win rate, and among that, with even three of four games ahead. I don't know where's the fun on that, but it would be good to let participate accounts with a minimum activity in the site, for example, to avoid this kind of things.

If you have <XXXX tournaments there will be sandbagging no matter what. The correct solution to this actually is to merge all the players in one big player pool. I know I'm gonna be heavily downvoted for saying this, but it is the truth.

If you have <XXXX tournaments there will be sandbagging no matter what. The correct solution to this actually is to merge all the players in one big player pool. I know I'm gonna be heavily downvoted for saying this, but it is the truth.

There's already the 20 game restriction, which is already some obstacle if you create an account for the very first time. I think any further restrictions will only reduce the amount of participants but not solve the problem of sandbagging (people will find bypasses and are reckless no matter what).

There's already the 20 game restriction, which is already some obstacle if you create an account for the very first time. I think any further restrictions will only reduce the amount of participants but not solve the problem of sandbagging (people will find bypasses and are reckless no matter what).

It sucks, but there's no way to stop sandbagging from happening, or cheating for that matter. However, there's a way to deal with it: lichess.org/report

It sucks, but there's no way to stop sandbagging from happening, or cheating for that matter. However, there's a way to deal with it: lichess.org/report

Yeah, I reported a few players in the past. Because they're too obvious, but the smurfs accounts make the low rate tournaments boring as hell.

Yeah, I reported a few players in the past. Because they're too obvious, but the smurfs accounts make the low rate tournaments boring as hell.

Very recently a different chess site changed there weekly tournaments. Instead of being paired against people that are close to you in tournament standings, you get paired against someone close to your rating. And then win percentage and tournament points determines the winner. An under 1000 won second place recently behind Hikaru. It won't stop sandbagging and/or cheating but it will stop the smurfs who sandbag solely to inflate there own ego in an under XXXX tournament.

Very recently a different chess site changed there weekly tournaments. Instead of being paired against people that are close to you in tournament standings, you get paired against someone close to your rating. And then win percentage and tournament points determines the winner. An under 1000 won second place recently behind Hikaru. It won't stop sandbagging and/or cheating but it will stop the smurfs who sandbag solely to inflate there own ego in an under XXXX tournament.

@OneDummHikk If you mean chess.com you are allowed to mention it here. There is no censorship here like on that site.

@OneDummHikk If you mean chess.com you are allowed to mention it here. There is no censorship here like on that site.

I know I replied to this but it isn't showing up for me.

Yes, I was referring to chess.com. I avoided naming the site because it seems that if you mention any other site here besides lichess, you get mauled by the "how dare you mention any other site" crowd here. Not the moderators, but users.

I know I replied to this but it isn't showing up for me. Yes, I was referring to chess.com. I avoided naming the site because it seems that if you mention any other site here besides lichess, you get mauled by the "how dare you mention any other site" crowd here. Not the moderators, but users.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.