Pedro, Rex Nihilo: So someone gets a huge rating with their first few games. That's great. I'd target them as ripe for plucking. A few games with them and I've either found a new opponent to play or I've earned a nice handful of points for myself and sent them on the way down to their natural level. If it's cheating it's certainly a most unsuccessful form. High rated players should welcome such people with open arms, lol.

Pedro: The other three opponent's rating don't matter? My understanding is that it's the average of those four games, so I rather think they'd matter as much as the first.

Purple: Sandbagging sounds like something painful but what about sockbagging, lol? How much damage can an unrated player gain - assuming they can find a high rated player willing to take the risk? (A sensible answer to an invitation is perhaps: "Yes, I'd love to play you .. come back in 4 games time and we'll play a 5-point match"). I played a game against someone rated over 700 below me and she beat me. I lost 16 points which is a sting rather than a knockout blow (I'll get it back with two wins against someone at my own level). Although if she was a peer in disguise and we had a multi-point match and only if we had proper backgammon ratings here, then it would be something painful.

ArtfulDodger: How many people want to throw in a 2100+ rating to play in a low ranking tourney? What do they gain from that maneuver? Pride at winning such a tourney is even more self-deluding that having the highest rating on only a handful of games. As Pedro says, you need to play decently high raters to get your own rating up high. That opportunity wuld be lost to anyone playing the low rated tourney.

BuilderQ: One way is to consistently play opponents who are weaker than you. But that's not necessarily a case of manipulation for it may be that you play more or less with the same bunch of people and happen to be the best within the group.

------------------
Resetting your rating is, I would say, a legitimate thing to do if you ought to be high rated but aren't, perhaps because you didn't understand the BKR rating system (How many newcomers do? How many established players do?!). So, you made poor choices of your first four partners (just 4 dammit!) or had a bad run of luck (just 4 dammit!) and start with a crappy rating. Now it's a long haul to get to where you belong. All that while you have a low rating which is not a reflection of your ability and you're inadvertantly sucker-punching everyone left right and centre - the very accusation that you make towards the guy who has reset his rating! Allowing him to reset and play appropriately to get his rating where it belongs is actually fairer all round in this case.

Another legitimate use that I've seen - at VogClub where you can reset at six month intervals - is a top rated guy who resets himself every now and then to enjoy the challenge of getting back up to the top again. Why shouldn't he? It adds spice for him and while it costs points to those he plays, the ripples settle after a while. I must say, though, that again it depends on the formula. The 4 plays to set the rating is completely ridiculous in my view. It must work for the chess community otherwise it wouldn't their choice after so many decades (or whatever, I don't care), but it's no good for plenty of other games and useless for luck-based games.