Originally posted by sergen1976What?
Guys,
Did you think before that position is winable for you? I assume this position comes with winning by default that he offers you. Don't accept this position and that is it. Try to start game with him from first move. May be he learned this position for years.
I doubt these games are set pieces.
Originally posted by ChessMomWas he accusing him of cheating or was he accusing him of intensionally sandbagging his rating to ambush better players. If so, is this illegal? If you are willing to take a loss to keep your rating low it is still a loss. At some point he had a 1200 rating, even if he was a 1600 player, if he beat a really good player then, would it be cheating?
If you're gonna accuse someone of cheating, the least you can do is post the games where you think it happened.
Originally posted by mateuloseSerious accusations like this should be backed with evidence and names should be explicitly stated as otherwise this is just a frivolous post... My suggestion would be to ask an administrator, provide the evidence and let them handle the case...
A particular player, who I will not name, is on track of absolutely schooling me and beating me 3 times in a row, often off Tal like scacrefices and mates that are almost impossible, probably were impossible to stop, which is why I lost no matter how hard I thought for refutations.
Now normally I would be happy to lose to such "great" players and lear ...[text shortened]... o warn players of such behaviours and I wonder if anyone else has experienced something similar?
Originally posted by AlopintoCome on,how can someone take seriously mateulose's rants?
Serious accusations like this should be backed with evidence and names should be explicitly stated as otherwise this is just a frivolous post... My suggestion would be to ask an administrator, provide the evidence and let them handle the case...
Some time ago he was complaining that lower rated people was beating him with cheap tactics,now he complains that people is beating him with sound sacrifices and combos.
I think he's just finding excuses for everytime he's going to be beaten,no matter who or in which way.
Mateulose,face it!
There will always be someone who plays and beat you and the things are two:
1) you played bad and deserve to lose.
2) you played well but your opponent played better than you and deserves to win.
Period.
Originally posted by CliffLandinThat's exactly what I'm "accusing" him off. Where did I say he cheats? Where did I say he uses an engine? In fact, I praised him as the best player I have ever played so far, and I've played 1700-1900 players enough, so that's says a lot about how good his nutural play is, yet somehow, he ALWAYS has a lower rating then me. In one game I looked him up, he got checkmated in 19 moves by never castling in the opening and leaving a king in the center against a 1300 rated player, I'm sorry, but there's no way the guy I played, and this guy who lost in 19 moves, are the same player, in fact, most of his losses are in this suspicious nature.
Was he accusing him of cheating or was he accusing him of intensionally sandbagging his rating to ambush better players. If so, is this illegal? If you are willing to take a loss to keep your rating low it is still a loss. At some point he had a 1200 rating, even if he was a 1600 player, if he beat a really good player then, would it be cheating?
He doesn't use engines, even in my games, engines indentify he has done some minor mistakes, according to them. The engines also don't like his sacrefices too much, because the engine could not see a concrete way to win by sacreficing as such (I saw the same), yet strangely enough, some engines offered the same defenses I tried/attempted, these same defenses that made me lose 15 moves or so later, so I can't help but feel, the engine is simply wrong in this case/assessment.
He's NOT cheating, he's NOT a cheater, he DOESN'T match an engine. I think he's what the chess community calls a "lowballer", and beleive it or not, many such players, for whatever reason, exist online. They are great OTB players, but play lowballer online because they think it's fun. This is not cheating, just annoying and kinda in bad taste, but it's not like you can do anything about it, it's perfectly legal.
1 edit
That's exactly what I'm "accusing" him off. Where did I say he cheats? Where did I say he uses an engine? In fact, I praised him as the best player I have ever played so far, and I've played 1700-1900 players enough, so that's says a lot about how good his nutural play is, yet somehow, he ALWAYS has a lower rating then me. In one game I looked him up, he got checkmated in 19 moves by never castling in the opening and leaving a king in the center against a 1300 rated player, I'm sorry, but there's no way the guy I played, and this guy who lost in 19 moves, are the same player, in fact, most of his losses are in this suspicious nature.
He doesn't use engines, even in my games, engines indentify he has done some minor mistakes, according to them. The engines also don't like his sacrefices too much, because the engine could not see a concrete way to win by sacreficing as such (I saw the same), yet strangely enough, some engines offered the same defenses I tried/attempted, these same defenses that made me lose 15 moves or so later, so I can't help but feel, the engine is simply wrong in this case/assessment.
He's NOT cheating, he's NOT a cheater, he DOESN'T match an engine. I think he's what the chess community calls a "lowballer", and beleive it or not, many such players, for whatever reason, exist online. They are great OTB players, but play lowballer online because they think it's fun. This is not cheating, just annoying and kinda in bad taste, but it's not like you can do anything about it, it's perfectly legal.
"Lowballer" is a new term to me. Please explain.
It sounds like you're saying that you think two different people are playing you under a single user name? That one person is a 1200 player and the other is a 1900 player? And that they are doing this on purpose in order to wreck your rating?
Please clarify exactly what you think is going on, as it is most confusing.
Originally posted by ChessMomEhm,ChessMom,use the feature ''Reply and quote'' at the bottom of the post you want to comment,so it will be more clear which is the quote and which is your post.
[quote]That's exactly what I'm "accusing" him off. Where did I say he cheats? Where did I say he uses an engine? In fact, I praised him as the best player I have ever played so far, and I've played 1700-1900 players enough, so that's says a lot about how good his nutural play is, yet somehow, he ALWAYS has a lower rating then me. In one game I loo ...[text shortened]... ck your rating?
Please clarify exactly what you think is going on, as it is most confusing.
Just helping.
Just for the record, I have just checked (very quickly) matelouses losing games, I found 17 of the 19.
11 of these, he lost as white, 9 of these 11 to LOWER rated players than his current 1604 rating. In fact his average loss was to a 1543 rating. Ratings of players who beat him whilst playing as black are below.
1289
1593
1560
1521
1708
1395
1483
1575
1678
1603
1572
As white, he has only lost 6, with only 1 to a lower rating, his average loss was to a 175 (ratings below)
1625
1797
1616
1591
1929
1674
Did this guy mention lowballing, yet has lost more than 10% of his total played games to lower ranked players, WHILE PLAYING AS WHITE. Yet only lost 2 to HIGHER RANKED PLAYERS. Looks like somebody is deliberately keeping down their own rating.
At this stage I will have tosay Allegedly, buit this is with great reluctance, as I can see it is pretty blatant
Originally posted by SteveCYep, that's been the story of my rating so far, I win 3 games in a row against slightly higher rated players, thiink I can only go up, then slam, I bump into some "noob" who finds several beautiful combinations and defeats me, tons of pts down the tube, those 3 wins are effectively canceled out. Personally, I'm geting tired of it, because I am not low-balling, I'm trying my best these games, yet somehow, they are just better then me, better then the higher rated players I played or those around my rating, etc. . . I don't get it, I honestly don't, I think it may just be me, I've always had trouble against low rated Yahoo tactical players, maybe the same problem is flowing over to here, normally I don't play these ratings, but the tournies, I have no choice. . .
Just for the record, I have just checked (very quickly) matelouses losing games, I found 17 of the 19.
11 of these, he lost as white, 9 of these 11 to LOWER rated players than his current 1604 rating. In fact his average loss was to a 1543 rating. Ratings of players who beat him whilst playing as black are below.
1289
1593
1560
1521
1708
1395
148 ...[text shortened]... ave tosay Allegedly, buit this is with great reluctance, as I can see it is pretty blatant
It seems like every 1200-1500 player I meet is a tactical wizard for whatever reason, there all like Paultopia's I guess, and for whatever reason, they just flat out outplay me. Part of the dilemma is me trying to figure out why these guys have low ratings to begin with, they must lose for a reason, but when they play this crazy tactics that only master players would spot, I don't see how they are worse players. Personally, I think I'm going to test their metal a bit, next time I see a 1300 rater introduce a GM tactic that kills me, I'll ask him to explain WHY he did it, because a lot of these moves are simply hard to find for ANY rating, so at the very least, he should be able to explain how he played that move immediately and why, I'll put these questions to them the same way we did with JW.
For example, I don't want to point fingers, but No1Marauder bashed me for dying immediately against Gimbitzoid quickly in a bizarro opening. Gimbitzoid was a 1350 rater, and did a rather exceptional move, a move that most on RHP, despite their mutual hatred of me, admit they wouldn't of spoted or saw. To be fair, I thought it was a wonderful move too, but. . . When Gimbitzoid tried to explain the move and why he did it, I found his explanation a little on the silly side, but as the loser I refused to comment on this area. Someone who played that move surely would know what the heck they were talking about I thought, no matter how weird the explanation seemed to me, but I don't think Gimbitzoid honestly had a clue what he was talking about or why he played the very exceptional move.
He started talking about the Deminio (how do you spell that again?), a brutally bad opening where you move your f pawn up one square and pointlessly expose your king, yet I have never played the Deminio EVER, and that game was not that opening. Immediately I was very confused about this, perhabs No1Marauder, being a way better player then I, can explain what he (Gimbitzoid) meant in such a case because he agreed with his assesment, as I think others were also a bit lost there.
This kinda chess is common amongst my games, the most exceptional moves I have seen, have been among the lower rankers. Those around my rating honestly haven't impressed me much, the lower dudes however, have, their tactics were simply way better then those around my own rating, sorry, but that's exactly how I've been seeing it. . . Maybe someone who teaches chess may have a better explanation as to why this is. . .
Originally posted by Ravello"Come on,how can someone take seriously mateulose's rants?"
Come on,how can someone take seriously mateulose's rants?
[b]Some time ago he was complaining that lower rated people was beating him with cheap tactics,now he complains that people is beating him with sound sacrifices and combos.
I think he's just finding excuses for everytime he's going to be beaten,no matter who or in which way.
Mat ...[text shortened]... lose.
2) you played well but your opponent played better than you and deserves to win.
Period.[/b]
I am not. I am just stating what, imho, he needs to do in order for him to be taken seriously.
But judging from the way almost everybody treats his posts I will just ignore the guy and not even bother reading his material...