This site is rigged, they manipulate the games with bots, not real people

edited moderator Andrewsmith

edited moderator Andrewsmith

It is true that the levels in the lower elos(and maybe higher) can be inconsistent, but it is not because the site is rigged. We have sandbaggers, casual and serious players are mixed in the 1000s-1200s, people still playing on despite not being on a good form (tilt), playing under the influence, etc. Over the board everyone is expected to at least be in somewhat good form with chess as their current focus, but online you can get players who are completely distracted and just killing time on chess while waiting for something, hence the inconsistent level they display.

Also it's normal for your rating to fluctuate 100-300 points. It means you are at your current peak. It is much easier to observe the differences around you and blame it on that, but have you observed the differences in yourself? Check your play, check your accuracy, check what you missed and how critical they were, did you really play just as well as you did against that 800 compared to that 1100? are you prone to tilting? maybe it's your play that actually fluctuates, and not the skill of your opponents.

Finally, ask this: What benefit would it be to chess.com to rig their site with bots to manipulate rating?

Why does this remind me of another forum? something about elo gatekeepers and other t stuff lol

How can you say "it is not because the site is rigged" unless you are just being a shill for the site? How can you 100% know it is not rigged? Read on.

"We have sandbaggers, casual and serious players"

Then, there should be NO PROBLEM reaching 1000. Why is it that the rating went from 800 (if not lower) with a modicum of small effort. There was something like 30+ wins with only 3 or so losses, but as soon as it reached ~995 where another win would bring the rating over 1000 the competition got so strong that I couldn't win? Then, after reducing the rating 50 points multiple time, this continued.

If it wasn't rigged and you had "casual" players then there should be a change from a string of wins vs. a string of losses. If it were random you should be able to beat the casual players then eventually. Why is it when you approach 995 this doesn't occur?

Sandbaggers wouldn't know to play you right when you reach 995.

And here is a game against someone accused of violating the fair play policy. So, I am pointing out something unfair to those trying to progress without the "unfair" play.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/108775481624?username=mycatsanddogsaregms

This has nothing to do with improvement. We can all improve at all rating levels. How is it that you can beat players with 1,000 games at 1000+ rating, but then all of a sudden you can't win? This tilt excuse is just that. It's made up BS. If you are playing consistently, your rating should just teeter totter at worst. You don't lose, lose, lose like I am experiencing.

And it's always the same. You create an account, you win a bunch initially, then you lose a couple educational games, then it's complete confusion afterwards. Those initial opponents SHOULD NOT be rated what they are then. If it is not rigged, you should be losing initially just as you lose after some games.

Another aspect to this rigging is you will lose a bunch of games and rating points, but when you eventually win it will be a complete blunder on like move 3. You don't ever win where there is a "volley fight" meaning you have the advantage and then they do. Either you beat them right out of the gate or the opponent obliterates not conceding to anything. That type of opponent never made it to 1500. How can they be so strong at 800?

That is not human play, and that is not accurate pairings.

I have brought up similar points in this thread, but I have no clue what the gatekeeper reference is. Did the person use that or are you using it to label something in my words as similar? In a way, yes, if gatekeeper means stopping you when you approach the ~00s (900, 1000, 1100, etc...), then yes, I wouldn't be surprised. I was winning comfortably from 800, with a few losses here and there due to inaccurate play, but then just as I reached ~995 I could no longer win. This is rather odd after you have tried this with multiple accounts for years and you get the same results. But yet, you can beat higher rated bots you couldn't beat years ago, and you can beat humans OTB that you couldn't beat years ago?

Somehow, you have improved, but all of a sudden the good players sign on as you approach 1000? I am not buying that. There is manipulation of the server then.

Chess.com even has a bot, Jimmy at 600, that adapts to your rating. It is well within reason to see that they could have bots play you, and then play at the same level based on evaluating the accuracy of your play. This could create bots that seem to play like humans, but will beat you in the end. Here are some at different levels, 600-2000.

I know when I play more human like play when multiple mistakes are made. These bots seem to give up stuff initially, but then they never screw up again. A human wouldn't play like that unless it is like an opening trap.

So, are you making the argument that it is rigged? That because I lowered my rating, something changed from randomly pairing me up to selectively pairing me up?

And why did this selective pairing happen BEFORE I lowered my rating and not after?

Why is it that I was 800, not sandbagging, raised my rating to ~995 and then couldn't win? Your lack of explanation and replies which only attack me show you have nothing to offer here as substantial.

I challenge you to post something worth substance.

If you can't figure that out, then you are definitely not the person to discuss this with. Maybe you should look at the original post. That's a clue Einstein.

"you only messed around with your last account"

I don't hustle players, knowingly rematch them. If they do, then it's on them not me. What I do is nowhere close to that. If anyone, Magnus or a strong 1600 club player, creates an account and plays at ~400 raising their rating game by game with different randomly paired opponents, PROPERLY randomly paired, then that is a far cry from joining a lower rated tournament to just win a prize or money.

People see the word "sandbag" and they don't think out the applications of it. What I am doing is not really sandbagging. We should all be allowed to start low an work our way up. I don't mind stronger players playing me if they are honestly and genuinely moving up. But I am not low to stay low. And that is the HUGE difference.

The guy is a cheater and a troll. The proper action is to report.

Rigged?

We stronger players do pay chess.com so they'll keep weaker players at bay with lotsa evil cheating bots. Cos we stronger players can't face the fact that weaker players will beat us if they make it to the good ratings. It's expensive, but it's worth the money we pay to the online chess mafia, so we can keep our position and dominate the world.

Don't you think?

When the rating increases, so does the competition. When we players are close to a rating milestone, we might feel increased pressure, leading to mistakes. Look at my profile. When I was close to hitting 1800 for the first time, I proceeded to lose multiple games. Does that mean the site is rigged? No, because the same applies for my otb tournaments, unless FIDE rigs their games too. I acknowledge that this is my flaw that nerves get to me every time im about to hit a 100th elo milestone, online or otb.

What you are experiencing is normal. There are no conspiracies working against you. There is no one on earth that would benefit from creating bots for the sole purpose of preventing players from hitting 1000, let alone exert the effort for something that would yield little to no benefit, only problems.

I mean just think about it for a moment. You're chess.com. Why do you need these bots??? Stop blaming the world around you. Acknowledge that it is your flaw. Work on yourself, grind to be a better player.

"When the rating increases, so does the competition. When we players are close to a rating milestone, we might feel increased pressure, leading to mistakes."

That isn't what I am addressing. Ratings did go down, ratings went up, then ratings went down but didn't go up. It's the subsequent drop that doesn't make sense. If you can beat players regularly between 1100-1500, why can't you also do that with 600-1000 in the second string of losses? This has happened on multiple accounts, not just the original post account.

"What you are experiencing is normal. There are no conspiracies working against you. There is no one on earth that would benefit from creating bots for the sole purpose of preventing players from hitting 1000, let alone exert the effort for something that would yield little to no benefit, only problems."

With confident statements like that, I can smell the BS miles away.

"I mean just think about it for a moment. You're chess.com. Why do you need these bots??? Stop blaming the world around you. Acknowledge that it is your flaw. Work on yourself, grind to be a better player."

Chess.com is a pay site, they want you to sign up and pay. Look at their expensive Chessable courses. When they promoted ChessUp 2, the algorithms didn't reach the public till AFTER the discount on their Kickstarter expired. It's now $50 more. Money, money, money.

Psychology of it involves you winning early on, then you lose, posts made that you tilted, etc...

Still, no one can explain why you can beat players who have 1,000+ games with a rating of 1000+, but then over time you can't even win against a 600-800 player.

Report a closed account? Talk about beating a dead horse.