No ratings change after a rated game ?

Game : en.lichess.org/Qna7e3j17HBL

Was supposed to be rated, as far as I can tell, it's written "rated" in the top left ? Yet I lost and no rating changes occured.. why is it so ?

Your opponent got tagged for "artificially increasing or decreasing their rating" that is why it was not rated.

Ah, thanks. So any game they play will be unrated, even if any particular game says/seems otherwise.

Looks a lot like a bug, though, and their seeks pass the "rated" filter, more or less another bug.

"artificially increasing or decreasing their rating" <- what is that? Is that what has happened to me?

I logged out, went to my profile and looked. And there it was, and has probably been there for a few days.

"This player artificially increases/decreases their rating"

Suggestions:

1) Fix your matchmaking

Questions:

1) Will it go away?

GG-NO-RE

In this thread, en.lichess.org/qa/258/all-about-cheating-questions-and-answers - point number 10: "I'm going to create a new account because I've been marked. Why shouldn't I?" the answer to that was:

"A: You shouldn't create a new account because you marked. You're only allowed one account. If you believe you've been incorrectly marked, refer to point 7. If you really need more than one account, and you're going to use it for legitimate purposes, just ask. You can email contact@lichess.org with your situation."

So this is what I'm gonna do.

1) Send an email and wait for no answer
2) Create a new account
3) Continue enjoying lichess.

I lost 53 consecutive games in a row, with 0% winrate. Clearly, I stopped at 841 rating because Lichess thinks it's impossible to have such a low rating. It's not possible within the system. Everyone should have between 800 and 2200. However, someone does have over 2200, SO THAT MEAN SOMEONE MUCH HAVE BELOW 800 rating, without that meaning that he is a artificial chessplayer.

So I will do that exact same thing. Lose the 55 first games and then play on my level. The matchmaking is at fault, not the players.

Don't give me a 1700 player, he wins easily, and THEN give me a 1900 player. wtf is this matchmaking. My new account will ask for the range of 800 to 2200, no longer will I try to find a fair match, because there is none. UNLESS I'm at my rating, which is 841.

Now, where is that email...

@mrn

You shouldn't break the sites rules. You also should not advertise that you're going to do so.

"Clearly, I stopped at 841 rating because Lichess thinks it's impossible to have such a low rating"
That is not why they stopped you at 841.

"Don't give me a 1700 player, he wins easily, and THEN give me a 1900 player. wtf is this matchmaking. My new account will ask for the range of 800 to 2200, no longer will I try to find a fair match, because there is none. "
There are fair matches, but purposefully not using tools to help you find good matches is counter-productive. The new system may be a little weird (though I haven't noticed any problems)

If you're getting a low rating, you either deserve a low rating, or you're artificially changing your rating. And after checking your match history, I agree with lichess. I see that you played against the same 1200 rated player over and over and lost every time by resigning after one or two moves. That is not acceptable behavior. And by doing that you are in fact artificially changing your rating.

Here are some of the obvious examples of you cheating (either knowingly or not) I found before I got bored. It actually seems like the majority of games you end up resigning in a fine position.

en.lichess.org/gpTf4x3a
en.lichess.org/zYQwGWLj
en.lichess.org/Gy6MdeWI
en.lichess.org/EeaJGb9c
en.lichess.org/3Kb1TyKU
en.lichess.org/6mVa0yFD
en.lichess.org/jSPfwbeO
en.lichess.org/xQPUPSwK
en.lichess.org/bBVifXYf
en.lichess.org/F6LSJXGQ
en.lichess.org/CdJZJMi6
en.lichess.org/N24xLleV
en.lichess.org/9uCAKsvB
en.lichess.org/EqvYuS6j
en.lichess.org/pAxSJtuK
en.lichess.org/zJF9HlIc
en.lichess.org/BROQXerX
en.lichess.org/vZCsCTqn
en.lichess.org/hXHZGdLB

I had to log in again to answer the accustations.

"You shouldn't break the sites rules. You also should not advertise that you're going to do so."

It really doesn't matter, does it? They want to prevent smurf accounts, which I totally agree with. Smurfing as a problem across many games. That is not a problem I contribute to. I'm bad either way. I sent an email, and as expected, no reply.

"There are fair matches, but purposefully not using tools to help you find good matches is counter-productive. "

An average player against an average player will often (?) result in a fair match. An above average player will have a good time. A below average player is having a bad time. That's game, that's life. If you have chips stacked against you in life, so it will in chess.

This site is using tools to create matches. It's called matchmaking. You can make it as simple or as complex as you want. I'm asking for the complex one.

"The new system may be a little weird (though I haven't noticed any problems)"

Me neither. I don't know how it works. I *guess* it works by taking time into consideration. The longer you wait, the more unfair is the match. Since I'm bad, the longer the wait, the more points the opponent will have. And I lose points. And I try again, and I meet an even *stronger* opponent. That's an evil loop. Unescapable.

"I see that you played against the same 1200 rated player over and over and lost every time by resigning after one or two moves."

I didn't ask to meet the same person over and over again.

"It actually seems like the majority of games you end up resigning in a fine position."

It was never a fine position. I never surrend a winning game. Winning is fun. I like to win. I love to win. I just never do, UNLESS I meet someone at my level. That's all I ask for. Even matches. Fair matches.

"It really doesn't matter, does it?"
Yes, it does. Rules matter. That's why they exist.

"I sent an email, and as expected, no reply."
It's been fewer than 4 hours. Come on now. Have a modicum of patience.

I've sent you a pm, so if you have a response, use that.

It looks like the logic for determining if a player is "boosting" checks that the game is less than 10 moves. Quite a few games on the account are forfeited very early. There's no excuse for this behavior, lichess has an option to "abort" if the player's rating is too high for your liking.

You can also create custom thresholds to avoid playing players with higher ratings.

Forfeiting tons of games instead of figuring out how the site works seems like a pretty reasonable reason for an account flag.