Yeah, seems weird. You could send in a ticket to chess.com.
SANDBAGGING...?? What for ?!
that was his glicko reacting to the vertiginous fall : one game suffices to shoot up again. That is "normal".
It finds an equilibrium over time and stabilizes. But if you submit it to a sudden huge change, like that Dendy's resigning 389 gmaes, it loses its "rationality"... trying to adjust.
Well, sure, that would be a more efficient way to do it. Trying to be sneaky and not give away his other accounts though? And maybe it's a kid and there's no logic to it.
There are different ways to get it IIRC, but basically after you perform over a certain rating for a certain number of games, you get a "floor" i.e. a number your rating can't fall below no matter how many games you lose.
I see. An anti-sandbagging rule. Nice.
Yes, chess.com could implement that. There are reasons for a member to timeout on 389 games, not to resign on 389...
Somebody time out or resign everything because something happens. Accident, illness, angry boss, vodka, angry wife......?
You know how long it would take to resign 300 games... if there's an emergency in your life you'd just let them time out. And you wouldn't resign on move 1 either...
I have sandbagged to get my rating back to normal. A irl friend 200 higher than me challegned me to about 5 games. Because we were friends irl I accepted but then he timeouted(?) on every game. My rating went shooting up so I had to sandbag quite a bit to get it back to normal.
In your person's case, I expect they just want to see if they can reach a minus rating or something, out of curiousity. I've always wanted to have a negative rating but I like winning games more than resigning move 1 so...
http://www.chess.com/echess/stats/Dendy1999