Is it sandbagging if

Ok, what if it's not the Q but a pawn? Probably nobody would notice.

I must say, I'm very confused about this whole sandbagging rules territory.

@pastas_fudges said in #1:
> then play normally rest of the game? Just for fun.

> I'm very confused about this whole sandbagging rules territory.

The first line is the line you cross. Do you "really" play normally or do you intentionally give up other pieces to secure the loss? The piece is just a piece like a pineapple is just a pineapple. Make sense? Someone made the weird conclusion that putting pineapple on pizza would improve the pizza. However, it is no better and no worse. Make even more sense?

So, we have to look at the pieces as they are. A loss of a queen is a blunder. A loss of a pawn is most likely an inaccuracy early on in a game or a mistake later on. Not saying it is never a blunder, but you would have to really try hard to make it that with being down already a queen.

That would be like eating a pineapple pizza while standing on quicksand. Make sense? Enlightened now?

@iaafr said in #7:
> its a situation where having an alternate account, or "smurf", dedicated to the gimmick is actually arguably more ethical than doing it on an account where you also play normally: if you're consistent on one account, eventually you'll attain the proper rating for playing with your handicap. if you do it a bunch and then start playing normally, then your account will be at a sandbagged rating as soon as you stop throwing the queen away, at which point it'd be unfair to your opponents

yes the account comes with the responsibility of whatever accumulated attribute it gathered. Those are the only hints we have toward deciding participation. Most obvious in rating questions. Otherwise kind of false representation spirit. And this is a community with some social cooperation premise (besides the competitive on-board-in-game material color and turn ones).

we agree to use our (assumed valuable) time with another here because we expect something worth it. and here rating is about promise of interesting game (my take).

I'm still trying to figure out how you sac the Queen on the first move...

Sandbagging is NOT ACCEPTABLE at any given time ... EVER ,,, Integrity is fantastic'

@SomewhatUnsound said in #14:
> I'm still trying to figure out how you sac the Queen on the first move...

good question. in all of 960 too. not part of the initial mobility reach. only knights and pawns. Maybe an exagerration to strike the imagination toward making understood the gist or intent of the question. going to op to refresh.

but i do get sloppy that way myself, so I may have not stumbled (tumbled?).
Indeed it is in the verbatim. probably typo (auto corrected upon my reading) for moveS, the magic of the plural form.
English undefinite is by omission, usually (not my first language). "The first moves" is definetely possibly undefinite.

@MasterOvFan said in #8:
> That user does not exist
he said something like that

@ThunderClap said in #15:
> Sandbagging is NOT ACCEPTABLE at any given time ... EVER ,,, Integrity is fantastic'

I don't think the question was whether sandbagging was ok. It was more about what constitutes sandbagging.

sandbagging which i gathered is dependent on future tournament entry intent in a lower category or something like that (see I don't even know exactly), to have some tiered ephemerous glory (=sandbagged tournament entry), is bad. not fair. false representation. but it is about tournament behavior and stake.

but to what extent is exploratory behavior or testing oneself on non-tournament games can be construed as sandbagging, for example, if tournament is the least of ones worries, and there are no intentions of going there.

there may be a moral question, and that requires some weighing of words beyond the letter. go back to original intent and context to figure how it might apply to enlarged or different context. revise assumptions with new information. not always easy or automatically done.

sandbagging = intentionally playing worse than your actual ability to attain a lower rating with the intention of playing at your actual ability after your rating is lowered, such that your rating no longer reflects the level you're playing at

experimenting with changing your repertoire or trying certain gimmicks and losing rating isn't exactly sandbagging on its own, but it gets closer to the spirit of sandbagging if you exclusively experiment outside of tournaments and exclusively play your "main repertoire" in tournaments, etc. if you want to experiment with new openings or approaches, just be consistent and continue doing it in tournaments as well.

as long as you never have the intent of "im going to lower my rating artificially by knowingly playing worse for awhile so that i can have easier games by playing full strength after lowering my rating," you're not sandbagging, at least in my eyes.

so sandbagging does not exist if never entering any tournament.

online chess has augmented or changed the meaning of rating I would say. a whole population that keeps playing non-tiered unitary games (as opposed to matches or tiered set of pairings meant as an event for rating update) without entry date or exit date, ever going wheel, random enough pairings.

so there is a population that does not have to worry about such entry level threshold. the whole notion of before entry and after becomes meaningless.

Also, what is the intent of playing lower before and true level during tournament event? why would one do that? (side point).