Use minimum bullet rating thresholds for longer time control tournament requirements

cheats are everywhere. in my opinion i wish chess engines were never invented. and play chess like the times of Tal, Fischer, Korchnoi, Petrosian in the 60s

i guess it is a good idea if we allow 8+ premoves per turn like chess.com...... bullet is 99% flag when the pieces on here are not as agile to move around.

This is not justified. I must play Bullet to be good in this disciplin. After 2 weeks or so playing Bullet every day my rating goes up, but i don't want to ,it's a waste of time.

I understand why you're suggesting this, but there are a few reasons it's infeasible.

1. Some people don't like bullet - so by this logic they should automatically be disqualified from longer time control tournaments (or a subset of them)
2. There are already rating threshold tournaments that are time-control-specific.
3. Someone could engine-up their bullet rating as well, which would defeat the purpose of this mechanism entirely.

Retroactive rating re-gains and tournament scoring adjustments may be the best option (good on lichess for that by the way), as any other mechanisms would start to create a bad user experience for a majority of the user base (legit players)

Complete idiot suggestion! I hate bullet. I once tried HyperBullet and with this TC it became God damn shit games. No fun. I never play it and have poor Bullet rating but I'm NOT a CHEAT!

#15 seems to hit the nail on the head. Why not create a private tournament if you don't like the public ones?

Actually as I mentioned somewhere already in the thread, I think it is better (for me without effecting tournament restrictions for anyone) if it were possible to have a customised warning system in a tournament - if someones bullet rating is say 600 points from their underlying 1.5 minute or 2.5 minute rating (calculated on their beserks).

In the Weekly tournament I mentioned, if the system knows the persons underlying 2.5 minute rating (from all past beserks in 5 minute tournaments), then maybe that could be an ingredient for working out a major rating mismatch.

If such an opponent was paired, it could indicate to me a big rating mismatch and I could take the option to resign or beserk to get the game over quicker. It would save having to check their profile in detail.

The warning system might be analogous to alarm statuses in a car - e.g. low on oil. In the tournament situation, the warning indicator would be like "severe rating mismatch" detected. But only if I wanted this particular warning enabled. It could be disabled by default.

Thanks to Kingscrusher for opening this topic. I like the idea of restricting cheating on chessplaying sites, however I don't think it can be made 100% effective(I think there will always be people challenged by whatever restrictions - after all that's their sport, I guess). I think the problem with the proposed warning system is that if someone doesn't play bullet, then the system just doesn't know on the first place... I think though of another idea - I think it would be nice if the system gave an information that you are playing someone new to lichess(say up to 1month old membership), which coud be easily indicated by the colour of the circle next to the players nick(everyone has a green circle - so a new member could have say yellow) I mean, in my opinion the cheaters want to have a quick 'fun', so they create account - win a tournament(usually with 100% or so score) , get abbolished and start the same process again, right? I think of cheaters as short time members - not someone who plays correctly for years on the particular site. On playchess.com they have the pawn/knight/bishop/rook/queen/king rank which gives an idea of credibility of that particular player. I think the chance that someone cheats is lower the longer one plays on the site(though of course that doesn't and cannot deny it entirely). As it is now, yes, it would be more convenient to see my opponents 'member from date' when hovering over their name than the language they use for instance. Of course I can always click on their account, but that is time consuming and I agree in this regard with the author... Anyway I think the site grows better with discussions like these.

#17 A cheater could trivially defeat such a "mismatch" by not playing any bullet games, or by playing only a few against weak opponents. Besides, not all good chess players are good at bullet.

You haven't answered my question, and I don't understand "as I mentioned somewhere already in the thread" that you're referring to.

#19 Toadofsky My original suggestion is bad and I agree with it being bad. But to try and tackle the issue of rating mismatch, I would like to propose instead some "credibility warnings" as #18 mentioned.

The potential winner of the weekly did seem to have a vast rating mismatch and had been on the site for some weeks it seemed when I had checked his tournament record.