Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 18 Dec '07 21:11
    who dont move in completely lost positions and dont resign, i want to hurt you all so badly,
  2. 18 Dec '07 21:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by alexstclaire
    who dont move in completely lost positions and dont resign, i want to hurt you all so badly,
    I'll bet you don't get invited to too many parties do you?

    And they probably play on because you "suck".
  3. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    18 Dec '07 22:47
    Originally posted by alexstclaire
    who dont move in completely lost positions and dont resign, i want to hurt you all so badly,
    you've abandoned all your games 5 times already. sounds like a reasonable guess that you'll do it again.
  4. 19 Dec '07 00:16
    Originally posted by alexstclaire
    who dont move in completely lost positions and dont resign, i want to hurt you all so badly,
    Henry Thomas Buckle: “The slowness of genius is hard to bear, but the. slowness of mediocrity is intolerable.”
  5. 19 Dec '07 01:13
    Originally posted by wormwood
    you've abandoned all your games 5 times already. sounds like a reasonable guess that you'll do it again.
    thats true, but when mate in one is coming and you wait 9 days to move then thats a little much
  6. 19 Dec '07 01:46
    Originally posted by alexstclaire
    thats true, but when mate in one is coming and you wait 9 days to move then thats a little much
    Play shorter time controls then
  7. 19 Dec '07 03:31
    Just try to avoid games with time banks
  8. 19 Dec '07 03:45
    Originally posted by alexstclaire
    thats true, but when mate in one is coming and you wait 9 days to move then thats a little much
    If you cut back on the Whine alittle it wouldn't seem so bad
  9. 19 Dec '07 04:38 / 4 edits
    Aaahh! The newest member of the Whiner Hall of Fame, you can join mnelson, Ben (dover) Mossberg, and zniemann.

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=79255

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=78776

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=80094
  10. 19 Dec '07 21:15
    4 edits, wow youre really smart, and a d*****bag
  11. 19 Dec '07 22:09
    What's a sandbagger?
  12. 19 Dec '07 22:38
    no such thing on this site being as anyone with some sort of brain can see any rating youve ever had
  13. 20 Dec '07 00:48
    Originally posted by Squelchbelch
    What's a sandbagger?
    Sandbagging happens in spades. When you bid on catching 4 tricks but you turn 6 you have two bags.
  14. 21 Dec '07 15:24
    Hey, I had a few typos, and changed my mind about one of the entries in the whiner hall of fame. Whats it to you?
  15. 21 Dec '07 16:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Squelchbelch
    What's a sandbagger?
    “Sandbagger” – A term used to define a chess player who has purposely (either through downright lying or game fixing) underinflated his or her chess abilities (usually his or her chess ratings). Since chess tournaments are organized by rankings, there are large incentives for players to try to play at lower levels. For those new to the game, this seems odd: usually you want to lie about how good you are, not how bad you are! Chess is strange due to the tournament structure. For example, one tournament might include rounds where players are ranked under 2100, under 1900, under 1500, and under 1200. A person ranked 1905 would be very unlikely to win the under 2100 tournament because he or she would be facing people with higher scores (all the way up to 2099!). However, simple lying or one or two purposely lost games can put that same chess player easily in the under 1900 range. This would be good for the chessplayer because for the under 1900 group, he would be a strong favorite for winning. “Sandbagging” is a sad result of people’s priorities. Especially when cash or prizes are given to tournament winners, players would much rather win a low ranking tournament round (ex. Under 1500) than have a better-than-average performance in a higher ranking round (ex. under 2100). Of course, the reality is the overwhelming majority of players in the under 2100 tournament round who didn’t win are “better” than the hypothetical under 1500 sandbagging champion. But at the end of the day, the sandbagger gets a trophy and his name printed up some where. That is all that is important to them. Because it skews and distorts the chess rating system, sandbagging is severely looked down upon. It tends, however, to be difficult to catch. The most common method of sandbagging, purposely losing games, can be hard to identify since people legitimately have cold snaps, losing streaks, and make huge blunders. People legitimately lose games all the time that they “should” have won. Thus, finding someone who loses games on purpose is difficult.

    From "http://blueeyedrook.blogspot.com/2006/05/goofy-chess-terms.html"