Smurfing

"Smurfing is when a highly-skilled player creates a secondary account as a disguise to play against less proficient opponents"

I don't need to check the rule book on this one, I've seen so many GMs do it can't possibly break any fair play rules but it feels... wrong?  The player playing against a GM in the 700s ratings doesn't stand a chance, just as he wouldn't vs a cheater.  But since it's for YouTube or Twitch views, it's okay? 

I've not seen any posts about this, curious to know other people's opinion about it.  I do enjoy watching Hikaru cut through 2300s like butter but I'm putting myself in the opponent's shoes, losing rating and not having any resources against that.

When it's Hikaru or Hansen they set it up with chess.com so their opponents get the rating points back, and if you go to the account it says "this is Hikaru's speed running account" or something like that.

that is very comforting to know

At least now I know what smurfing is. It's hard for me to keep up with the kiddie terms, lol.

Nah, It's a term that comes from other games. I don't think it's really that applicable to chess though.

It's a very big deal in some other games. One that I play gives ingame currency for beating up on lower ranked players. It's common in some game modes to come across people that have played 10,000 games and won 99%. It forces people to only ever play ranked matches. That's real smurfing, and obviously quite broken.

Imagine if all the kids begging for membership on the website here were rewarded for beating lower ranked players with currency points that they could spend on things that they want, and you can imagine the sort of madness that it would cause.

There's actually seems very little incentive for doing it here other than if someone is trying to make content for streaming. Doing it for educational purposes (such as playthrough guides) isn't normally considered an issue when it's for the greater good.

Did it originate from The Smurfs Dance Party?

Lol

originates for warcraft 2 when two online players intentionally played bad to get into lower ranks.  They did so on secondary accounts named papasmurf and smurfette, that was in 1996.

I think it's good when grandmasters or players in general make some sort of arrangement with chess.com and refund the rating points back to players after they have achieved what they wanted for content or miscellaneous purposes such as educational examples. It shows they are at least taking some sort of responsibility when they bully lower rated players.

But I feel smurfing in chess does the game a disservice. It's not broken, and the community at large doesn't feel it's necessarily immoral or wrong from what I have seen on youtube, twitch, and the chess.com forums, but that being said, wouldn't it be just as easy to show what 700 - 1200 ELO rated players are doing by just watching a game? There's no reason why a GM needs to bully below average to way below average players for the sake of content or "education". 

It delegitimizes the work and rating points players are earning and losing. if you know the rating points are going to be refunded WHEN you loose to the smurf account (because in my case, i'm 1280 at rapid so i can loose to practically anyone, and I'm sure some individuals have the same feeling) you might as well not even play the game against the smurf! You're put on display for an audience you don't want to be in front of, in the case of streamers or youtubers, for all your mistakes and errors, yet it's as if nothing happened at the end of the day when you get all your points back, and you end up just being a show pony. Otherwise, you're just loosing points that are no longer valued at anything because, for all my New Vegas fans, "The game was rigged from the start". 

Just curious. When someone beats another person who is rated really lower than him , I don't think so the one that loses , loses any rating points . So what's this refund thing all about ?

Because if Hikaru makes a new account he's rated 800 not 3500, so when you lose against him you actually lose points.

And from a few I've seen, the RD is low too, so they'll spend hours just climbing to 1500 for example.

Well that's the case only for a few. He isn't going to be 800 all the time. 

Why so ? Isn't rd supposed to be very high 350 for a new account

Because the whole point of making a video like "Climbing the Rating Ladder 1000 to 3000" is you play a lot of games at each level. That way it's more entertaining for the viewers.

So even if chess.com doesn't set up the account for you, you can do something like lose 50 games in a row on purpose before you start recording.

Ah I see

Smurfing can be seen as unfair and frustrating for lower-ranked players. While it's not explicitly against the rules, it can negatively impact the gaming experience. [Link removed - DB]

Some highly-skilled players create smurf accounts for the purpose of entertaining their audience on platforms like YouTube or Twitch. They might engage with lower-rated players to showcase their skills and entertain their viewers. From an entertainment perspective, this can be enjoyable for those who watch and support these content creators. It's also very much an online game. How do you feel about gambling? There is interesting information about https://casinosanalyzer.com/online-casinos/pay-by-phone best pay by phone online casinos I have just been looking for this for a long time. And how do you usually deposit in online games? On the other hand, many argue that smurfing is unfair to lower-rated players. When they encounter a smurf, they are often outmatched, and it can negatively impact their gaming experience, as well as their in-game rankings. It can be frustrating to play against someone who is clearly superior in skill.