Glicko-2 Rating System vs. ELO Rating • page 1/1 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

Hi:

I wanted to know why did lichess decide to use the glicko-2 rating system? You basically just get an arbitrary number (not really a rating) since you can't compare this to real life ratings. It would make sense to have no ratings at all really if you can't compare your online rating to real life ratings.

Isn't the whole point of making online ratings to compare what your rating might be in real life? If that's the case lichess should have done online ELO ratings. That way people can compare what their rating might be online to what it really is in real life.

I know somebody from chessdotcom has an entire article comparing their rating system to real life ELO and USCF ratings. Can such a comparison be made from lichess ratings?

Hi: I wanted to know why did lichess decide to use the glicko-2 rating system? You basically just get an arbitrary number (not really a rating) since you can't compare this to real life ratings. It would make sense to have no ratings at all really if you can't compare your online rating to real life ratings. Isn't the whole point of making online ratings to compare what your rating might be in real life? If that's the case lichess should have done online ELO ratings. That way people can compare what their rating might be online to what it really is in real life. I know somebody from chessdotcom has an entire article comparing their rating system to real life ELO and USCF ratings. Can such a comparison be made from lichess ratings?

tpr edited

#2

Glicko is mathematically better than Elo, but requires more calculation. Elo was conceived around 1970 and could be calculated without a computer. Glicko is only practical with a computer.
Glicko and Elo should reach the same rating, but Glicko reaches the right rating faster.

If two continents implement Glicko or Elo and the players of the two continents never play one another, then when they start playing intercontinental it will always show that one continent is overrated and one is underrated. Only if they play intercontinental will the ratings on both continents equalize.
That is also the case with FIDE rating and USCF rating: USCF is overrated as compared to FIDE.
Lichess is about 200 overrated as compared to FIDE.

Glicko is mathematically better than Elo, but requires more calculation. Elo was conceived around 1970 and could be calculated without a computer. Glicko is only practical with a computer. Glicko and Elo should reach the same rating, but Glicko reaches the right rating faster. If two continents implement Glicko or Elo and the players of the two continents never play one another, then when they start playing intercontinental it will always show that one continent is overrated and one is underrated. Only if they play intercontinental will the ratings on both continents equalize. That is also the case with FIDE rating and USCF rating: USCF is overrated as compared to FIDE. Lichess is about 200 overrated as compared to FIDE.

legend

#3

i like glicko2 better than elo.

but I think starting should be 1200 not 1500. I think some sites have glicko2 at 1200.

as for USCF vs FIDE.

USCF has a floor rating of 100.
FIDE has a floor rating of 1000.

my observation has been that usually in systems like USCF/FIDE
when it comes to players 2000+, USCF will be higher than FIDE rating most of the time.

however a player with a USCF of 800 might be 1200 in FIDE.

maybe im wrong, so correct me if so.

i like glicko2 better than elo. but I think starting should be 1200 not 1500. I think some sites have glicko2 at 1200. as for USCF vs FIDE. USCF has a floor rating of 100. FIDE has a floor rating of 1000. my observation has been that usually in systems like USCF/FIDE when it comes to players 2000+, USCF will be higher than FIDE rating most of the time. however a player with a USCF of 800 might be 1200 in FIDE. maybe im wrong, so correct me if so.

thibault

#4

http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf

"If the player is unrated, set the rating to 1500 and the RD to 350"

Glicko2 is built around this constant.

http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf "If the player is unrated, set the rating to 1500 and the RD to 350" Glicko2 is built around this constant.

Wolfram_EP

#5

The point of rating system is to be able to compare strengths of people with each other on the server, not to compare them with "real life ratings". There would always be inconsistencies with FIDE ratings even if ELO would have been used for calculations, simply because on lichess people play faster time controls. However, Glicko-2 is more modern system than Elo and encounters such factors as new people in the pool and changes in strength to adjust speed of rating change. Actually, chess.com uses Glicko (not Glicko-2) and has pretty similar problems with comparisons.

nckqefhm

#6

lol chessdotcom has a floor rating of zero

nckqefhm

#7

Would it be a good idea for lichess to lower everyone's rating by 200 points?

tpr

#8

What would be the purpose?
Who would that make happy?

What would be the purpose? Who would that make happy?

I concur with #8.

@tpr
1 It would help with converting ratings
2 It would make me happy. However, it will not be pleasing to most players to see their arbitrary number go down. I am aware that some people have tried to gather statistics on lichess ratings and uscf ratings. I don't think that will go very far. Regardless, it won't matter because most people only play blitz and bullet online.

On another note, does anyone know CFC (canadian) conversions?
Cheers :)

@tpr 1 It would help with converting ratings 2 It would make me happy. However, it will not be pleasing to most players to see their arbitrary number go down. I am aware that some people have tried to gather statistics on lichess ratings and uscf ratings. I don't think that will go very far. Regardless, it won't matter because most people only play blitz and bullet online. On another note, does anyone know CFC (canadian) conversions? Cheers :)