If I was to have two separate accounts with one being for playing chess right after I have eaten , I believe there would be 300 points difference on average between the two. I always play worse after food and there are many other times of the day where my play varies. Do not take this personally but I think this thread is silly.
Every FIDE matches are well-prepared. People, when they play for OTB rating, put all their effort into a game.
You, however, tend to take rating not seriously, by that cheating other players.
Let's say someone resigned 10 games for intentionally lowering their rating. He will be marked as sandbagger: "This player artificially increases/decreases their rating".
Another one plays 20-30 games on much worse level, by that lowering their rating as much, as it was in the first case with sandbagger.
Two similar cases, but you consider the second player guiltless.
What changes is only the form of intention. In both cases people do realize they play much worse. So they realize they mislead another players.
For example, you can analyze an example:
One doctor intentionally give a wrong medicine to his patient. This doctor's considered guilty, if it would be proven.
The other doctor just is negligent. He didn't intend to give the wrong medicine, but he mistook the diagnosis. Isn't he guilty in your opinion?
If you consider sandbagging of just frivolous mind innocent, it makes posteriority of you considering negligence harmless.
You, however, tend to take rating not seriously, by that cheating other players.
Let's say someone resigned 10 games for intentionally lowering their rating. He will be marked as sandbagger: "This player artificially increases/decreases their rating".
Another one plays 20-30 games on much worse level, by that lowering their rating as much, as it was in the first case with sandbagger.
Two similar cases, but you consider the second player guiltless.
What changes is only the form of intention. In both cases people do realize they play much worse. So they realize they mislead another players.
For example, you can analyze an example:
One doctor intentionally give a wrong medicine to his patient. This doctor's considered guilty, if it would be proven.
The other doctor just is negligent. He didn't intend to give the wrong medicine, but he mistook the diagnosis. Isn't he guilty in your opinion?
If you consider sandbagging of just frivolous mind innocent, it makes posteriority of you considering negligence harmless.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.