Why is rating manipulation allowed?

I was beaten really hard a few days ago. This person's rating was below mine, but the way he played was not typical for the type of games I usually get. All his moves were good and I felt completely outclassed.

Suspicious, I proceeded to check the guy's rapid history. He has been at his current rating for a very long time, as if he has plateau'd. That's unrealistic given how good he was.

I investigate further and check out some of his actual games. And now, as the Dutch say, "the monkey comes out of the sleeve" (the truth reveals itself):

He is resigning games after less than 15 moves. Loads of them. Multiple every day. This way he keeps his rating far below his actual skill level.

I have reported him for my game. I have reported him for dozens of other games. I did so for many days now, and I will continue to do this as long as I have the energy for it.

But yet he continues to play. My reports are disappearing into the void.

Why?

If you reported the member, staff will take a look, but you won't otherwise receive anything about it. Reporting multiple times isn't going to do anything additional.

A lot of staff was out last week, for a company meetup, so there is a backlog on a lot of things.

Thanks for the feedback. I had asked on Reddit previously and was told by the community there that you do get feedback from reports, hence I assumed it was being ignored. Good to know that it will be looked at.

At one point there were emails sent about action being taken, if an account was closed, but with no details about the specific report. That doesn't happen anymore, though I'm not sure if that's a bug or by design.

A week since I posted here. Two weeks since the first time I reported him. He's still doing it.

Why is nothing being done about this?

It just happened again, this time by someone else. The challenge to play came out of nowhere, so probably someone who saw this thread and thought that he is a funny person. I got destroyed by a 300 rated player. It's simply not possible that someone with that rating can make such moves.

I have cancelled my membership. I do not wish to fund a platform that encourages cheating.

Your last game was just lost to blunders.

Also, you resigned way too early. A 3 point material deficit is often not conclusive.

Yes, as a 700-rated player I blunder a lot. This hasn't stopped me losing games to 300-rated players before, who typically blunder a lot more. This guy made moves that do not befit a 300-rated player.

I resigned because I did not wish to continue playing against a cheater.

If you actually take the time to review the game, you will see that you missed many chances to get an advantage.

Also, there's no way you should have resigned.

Thanks for the analysis, I will study it and learn from it. It however does not change the fact that a 300 rated player played like a 800+ one.

I'm mid-1500 to mid-1600 OTB and I've lost to a player in my club a few times that's under 1200. I've had more games where I've been in a losing position against that same player, only winning due to later blunders.

300-400 points difference doesn't mean that a player can't play at a higher level, just that they can't consistently do it, over multiple games.

Ah crikey, I don't know how to support this argument. I played against this person and I know from gut feeling that they played a very strong game. I know that it was a game that is atypical for any game at my level, never mind below it. I know this because I have played enough games at my level to have a level of confidence about how difficult they typically are. Alas there's no data that I can point you to that will serve as evidence -- because how could you possibly measure it?

Sure, maybe the guy just luckily made a good move 20 times in a row by sheer chance. Who knows!

Also the skill gap between 300 and 700 is insanely large. I know this because I was there msyelf 2 months ago, before I started my training.

Ah well, what's done is done. My membership remains cancelled.

This was only one game that happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back. The original issue is still there: rating manipulation is being allowed.

Looking at his other games, I think you're being a sore loser here.  Being low rated doesn't mean you can't have good games, just that you can't consistently win against people more knowledgable than you.  

Looking at his other games, your opponent seems to have a huge blind spot for diagonals which is killing his rating.  Since your game didn't feature any long diagonals, he played stronger than his rating. 

That's a very interesting analysis! Perhaps then, this guy just beat me, so be it.

I am not a sore loser though. There is a consistent issue of rating manipulation. This game was perhaps not part of it (although I remain unconvinced). The original reason I created this thread was because of another player who is consistently resigning games he was not losing.

Thank you for your contribution.

So we've had that little diversion now, but the original issue is still there.

A player that I have reported well over 40 times now, is still, to this day, resigning games that he is not losing, just to keep his rating down.

Why is nothing being done about this? Is it because this member has a gold membership?

How are you reporting this person?  There is a button on their profile that says "Report".  Is that what you are using?

On the other hand, is there any possibility that you are wrong?

Chess.com employs a large team of professionals to look at games.  I think that they are more than ten just doing this job.  They have had their work reviewed by academics and many chess professionals.

They have a high standard set for declaring someone to be a cheater.

If the player is ultimately declared to be a cheater, it would be because they surpassed some threshold and the Fair Play team is entirely sure of their results-  not because the player got reported 40 times by one player or 40 times by 40 players.

For what purpose would someone with a true strength of 600 want to sandbag?  It's not like there are big money tournaments in that rating range.

I am reporting by viewing a game and then pressing the report button on the popup you get to see when you click on their name.

I do not believe that I am wrong. There are dozens of games where this player resigned, that have less than 10 moves, and nothing has yet happened other than the opening and some random piece movements.

This player is resigning games where he was not losing. He is resigning games where he is not even behind. He has dozens of games in recent history that are 15 moves or less. A lot of them even 10 moves or less. This is the most clear cut case of rating manipulation that could exist.

His true strength is not 600, that's the entire point. As for his motive: you'll have to ask him, not me. Smurfing is a common occurance in many online games. Some people do it to feed their ego, others just to troll.

 I think that this has gone on more than long enough.  Discussions of Fair Play and rating manipulation are directed to the Cheating Forum club.