Free online Chess server. Play Chess now in a clean interface. No registration, no ads, no plugin required. Play Chess with the computer, friends or random opponents.
Sign in
Reconnecting
  1. Forum
  2. General Chess Discussion
  3. Adding Rapid and Slow rating categories. - Please vote !

Hi all,

Classical time control ranges from 8 to 300 min. All other clubs and chess federations would consider 8 min as Rapid or Blitz though. But it seems best to create the missing Rapid category instead of just moving up this limit. After gathering lots of opinions on the matter (in other posts), I have created a final voting poll with illustrative images. Take a look !

http://www.anonvote.com/poll/t544757vq

To read before voting:

Why ?

Well, people who like longer time controls can just play them, such as 15+15 or the popular 45+45 team league, and sticking to that choice will show their strength at such longer games (most are stronger). Ok, but then, after spending so many days playing for hours to establish that new level, participating in a single 10+0 tournament is enough to wash away this change.

By introducing the Rapid category for those faster games, we will create different polls of players for Rapid/Classical categories. Classical ratings will then be more stable and closer. While Rapid should hold about 90% of the games and still peak to 2700+ (as we see now), any longer time category won't peak so much. Also, the longer will probably not have a top-10 leader-board, to avoid encouragement of cheating, but may have a rating stats chart.

Slow ?

To improve things even further, I suggested adding the Slow category too (better name suggestions are welcome), making it Rapid/Slow/Classical. The Slow range would then hold games 3 times longer than Rapid games, still leaving as Classical the much longer ones like 45n+45s team league games (equivalent to 75m), or the rare 60m+30s (equivalent to 80m) that we see sometimes. Initially, the idea of splitting in 30 min was the most popular. But then it doesn't leave much space for a tri-split (Rapid/Slow/Classical), since the second split would have to be around 90m and it is extremely rare to see such time control to be used online. As a result, I suggested to start Slow at 25 min (which would include popular 15m+15s), and start Classical at 75m (which would include 45m+45s).

Now please vote. Thanks !

Previous post:
en.lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/adding-a-new-30-min-rating-category-

Adding two more rating brackets is overkill, IMO, not even FIDE has that kind of segmentation for longer time controls... but a Rapid rating for anything up to 25 or 30 is long overdue, so yes please!

@LarsenB , I respect your view. But FIDE rules controls were created almost 100 years ago, for exclusive OTB play. While in FIDE the Standard time control starts at 60m, in online chess we tend to use much faster time controls and calculations are automatic. Also, Lichess is the #1 chess innovation site !

An additional rating category won't make it any harder for us to start a game (having an opponent clicking in our lobby seek add). Only takes us more games to get an established rating in all categories, if that is a goal.

Regardless of adding Slow or not, I vote for 25m instead of 30m, because that 5 min difference may double the number of games (15+15 and 5+30 are in that range), and 25m also leaves space for a future 75m.

Actually FIDE adjustments for the introduction of Rapid as opposed to the normal ELo ratings are much, much more recent... but, regardless of tradition or innovation, I think there's a sweet spot between "too few" and "too many"

The current Classical bracket is clearly meaningless, because it encompasses so widely different time controls, where 8+0 and, say, 45+45 become almost different games by the way they are played... but at the same time I don't see any particular improvement in having a Rapid bracket so small and then a third one starting already at the fast 15m+15s (which no one will ever think of as "slow" time control, tbh, even for online)

I mean, with the introduction of ultrabullet (which I'm also not too fond of... again, too tiny bracket) we are talking about *7 different ratings* just for standard chess alone: 6 live+1 correspondence... that is just redundant

@LarsenB , the Rapid/Slow ranges I proposed are larger than current Blitz range. See the math:

Blitz: 8/3 = 2.66
Rapid: 25/8 = 3.125
Slow: 75/25 = 3
Classical: 300/75 = 4

The images I made are in a logarithmic scale to illustrate that. Ok the existance of 7 rating measurements may make you feel like incomplete having only 3 of them, but they are like variants, meant only for users who do play on those time ranges and want a rating measurement. So you won't need to build a 75m+ rating (which you never played), the same way you don't need an ultrabullet or correspondence rating.

36 votes. Scores are close.

Nice image converting incremented time controls to equivalent total time: images.chesscomfiles.com/uploads/v1/images_users/tiny_mce/thinking_mac/phpOhHHo7.png

I agree. Most of my "classical" games are actually 15+10 or 15+15, so I'd like an extra category for actual classical, as my game improves exponentially the longer time I have :)

I voted for the first option but any of the first 4 choices is more then welcome.

Don't like any of the options.

Bullet etime < 3
Blitz etime 3 to <15
Rapid etime 15 to <60
Classical >60.

@EvilChess #1 lol didnt read

can you give twitter style info what you want? Regards ADS-Nils :-)

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.