- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Rating System Broken.

#11

It is a kind of systemic "Ratingism", to keep <2000 forever and 2200+ forever! :)
Look at OP's game!

https://imgur.com/nJQE5oe

It is a kind of systemic "Ratingism", to keep <2000 forever and 2200+ forever! :) Look at OP's game! https://imgur.com/nJQE5oe
#12

@drmrboss

I believe that is correct call, to keep the "rat" in the trap where he fell when began - no escape, ever!

For equaly rated players, FIDE gives +/- 10 for winning/losing (0 for draw), Lichess only +/- 2 to 5, or so.

@drmrboss I believe that is correct call, to keep the "rat" in the trap where he fell when began - no escape, ever! For equaly rated players, FIDE gives +/- 10 for winning/losing (0 for draw), Lichess only +/- 2 to 5, or so.
#13

Fide gives5 for winning equally strong opponent if players are above 2400. 10 otherwise. Not that simple though. FIDE ratings are not counted individually but in patches of once a month which causes developing players who play a lot to have a lag in rating
https://en.chessbase.com/post/rating-and-k-factor-wrapping-up-the-debate
computation is done now once a month so effect is small. Used to be lot higher when ratings were calculated once a year

So in online it makes lots of sense to have smaller steps. as there huge amount games and peoples rating adapts fast enough ans still ratings "noise" is smaller

Fide gives5 for winning equally strong opponent if players are above 2400. 10 otherwise. Not that simple though. FIDE ratings are not counted individually but in patches of once a month which causes developing players who play a lot to have a lag in rating https://en.chessbase.com/post/rating-and-k-factor-wrapping-up-the-debate computation is done now once a month so effect is small. Used to be lot higher when ratings were calculated once a year So in online it makes lots of sense to have smaller steps. as there huge amount games and peoples rating adapts fast enough ans still ratings "noise" is smaller
#14

I think the problem with the Lichess ratings system is that the first few games are weighted too heavily. After losing a few close games after signing up, there is virtually no way to get back up on ratings. This is especially annoying when my winrate against ~1600s is about 50-50 and I am only 1350.

I think the problem with the Lichess ratings system is that the first few games are weighted too heavily. After losing a few close games after signing up, there is virtually no way to get back up on ratings. This is especially annoying when my winrate against ~1600s is about 50-50 and I am only 1350.
#15

@EnderShadow8

Yes. That is mentioned many times. With small gain in points with equaly rated opponents , there is no way to recover - ever!

Glicko-2 rating system implemented here practically force you to win in few first games giving or taking enormous ammount of points, then when "stabilized" (small steps in winining/losing streaks), there is no way to progress rapidly. Except to play with 400+ more rated players and hope to win every game, gaining 11 points on each.

@EnderShadow8 Yes. That is mentioned many times. With small gain in points with equaly rated opponents , there is no way to recover - ever! Glicko-2 rating system implemented here practically force you to win in few first games giving or taking enormous ammount of points, then when "stabilized" (small steps in winining/losing streaks), there is no way to progress rapidly. Except to play with 400+ more rated players and hope to win every game, gaining 11 points on each.
#16

@EnderShadow8 ,
Dont lose your first 10 games, otherwise you will be in Gulag forever. :) , 1300 rating or whatever :)
https://imgur.com/NDbsKFn

@EnderShadow8 , Dont lose your first 10 games, otherwise you will be in Gulag forever. :) , 1300 rating or whatever :) https://imgur.com/NDbsKFn
#17

I'm quite inconsistent, that's the problem. I play aggressively, meaning there are usually very sharp games. I can't play something like QGD like I do OTB because I don't have that sort of patience on Lichess. There needs to be some sort of system to allow players to gain rating points more rapidly if they deserve it. I should be about 1500-1600 except I lost many of my first games as a relatively inexperienced player, and I can't get back up.

I'm quite inconsistent, that's the problem. I play aggressively, meaning there are usually very sharp games. I can't play something like QGD like I do OTB because I don't have that sort of patience on Lichess. There needs to be some sort of system to allow players to gain rating points more rapidly if they deserve it. I should be about 1500-1600 except I lost many of my first games as a relatively inexperienced player, and I can't get back up.
#18

@JC90 "Stop whining, theres nothing wrong with the rating system. "

No body "whining", but simply point facts.

All about implemented rating system here is so pathetic that actually makes every other online chess site to be much more enjoyable place. Even to start to play on FIDE tournaments, where are much better chances to progress, if fail on start.

Recipe is simply to close account and start multiple accounts here and stay on one you get a lucky to win all first dozen games. Or find other more suitable place, as is chess.com for instance. They probably use some variant of Glicko rating system as well, but their implemented rating rules seems to be much more logical than this.

@JC90 "Stop whining, theres nothing wrong with the rating system. " No body "whining", but simply point facts. All about implemented rating system here is so pathetic that actually makes every other online chess site to be much more enjoyable place. Even to start to play on FIDE tournaments, where are much better chances to progress, if fail on start. Recipe is simply to close account and start multiple accounts here and stay on one you get a lucky to win all first dozen games. Or find other more suitable place, as is chess.com for instance. They probably use some variant of Glicko rating system as well, but their implemented rating rules seems to be much more logical than this.
#19

The rating system has not coped well with the corona influx, at least in rapid three check games. The math underpinning the system will be correct, but it is not taking account of and compensating for unintended consequences in a pandemic. Who knows what those consequences are. A few ideas. I play 5 min+17 sec games and am attracting three question mark opponents every four games or so, maybe a lot more. Perhaps the new players are attracted to longer games and so I play way too many compared to the average user. It seems quite probable that these new players are much stronger than normal new players, because many will be real life players who can't play at clubs during the lockdown so are migrating online. It's pretty normal for a 2400 blitz player to be 1750? in three check and just outplay me with superior chess skill, wiping out half my rating gain for that day, and another 2400/1780? wiping out the other half a few games later. All my gains are being wiped out, and I just have no hope in these games. Of course these are elite-level problems to have, and unlikely to garner much sympathy from lower level players. Also, there might be a higher percentage of cheaters among the influx. Why? No idea. Increased boredom in lockdown? Could be anything. But I have been inundated with cheaters. Two of my last four opponents today were banned for cheating, and I generally don't receive point refunds because of the 40 game rule. My longer games might attract engine abusers, as classical games seem to. I would be surprised if some of these cheats were not the same people, laughing at how easy it is to target me, with my challenges often unaccepted for an hour. Anyway, my rating is being hammered and I am playing the best three checks of my life, my opening repertoire wider than ever by far. I had no complaints about the rating system before, and reported 1 player for cheating in years. But corona has broken the rating system, if my experiences are representative (and I understand they might not be). I am not the kind of person who complains about nothing. I am enduring an onslaught.
It is possible to play your way from an established rating of 1678 to 2152, but it took me many months of hard effort. And it wasn't just a question of my skills sharpening. Even with the sharpest skills, it's going to take you a lot of time to fix a very low, inaccurate rating. Much longer than it should. Playing at a 2000 level is just not enough to get you to 2000 for quite some time, because you can't attract high rated opponents who boost your rating when you beat them. Even at 2034 I am lucky to attract more than a few 2000+ players a day to my long rapid games.

The rating system has not coped well with the corona influx, at least in rapid three check games. The math underpinning the system will be correct, but it is not taking account of and compensating for unintended consequences in a pandemic. Who knows what those consequences are. A few ideas. I play 5 min+17 sec games and am attracting three question mark opponents every four games or so, maybe a lot more. Perhaps the new players are attracted to longer games and so I play way too many compared to the average user. It seems quite probable that these new players are much stronger than normal new players, because many will be real life players who can't play at clubs during the lockdown so are migrating online. It's pretty normal for a 2400 blitz player to be 1750? in three check and just outplay me with superior chess skill, wiping out half my rating gain for that day, and another 2400/1780? wiping out the other half a few games later. All my gains are being wiped out, and I just have no hope in these games. Of course these are elite-level problems to have, and unlikely to garner much sympathy from lower level players. Also, there might be a higher percentage of cheaters among the influx. Why? No idea. Increased boredom in lockdown? Could be anything. But I have been inundated with cheaters. Two of my last four opponents today were banned for cheating, and I generally don't receive point refunds because of the 40 game rule. My longer games might attract engine abusers, as classical games seem to. I would be surprised if some of these cheats were not the same people, laughing at how easy it is to target me, with my challenges often unaccepted for an hour. Anyway, my rating is being hammered and I am playing the best three checks of my life, my opening repertoire wider than ever by far. I had no complaints about the rating system before, and reported 1 player for cheating in years. But corona has broken the rating system, if my experiences are representative (and I understand they might not be). I am not the kind of person who complains about nothing. I am enduring an onslaught. It is possible to play your way from an established rating of 1678 to 2152, but it took me many months of hard effort. And it wasn't just a question of my skills sharpening. Even with the sharpest skills, it's going to take you a lot of time to fix a very low, inaccurate rating. Much longer than it should. Playing at a 2000 level is just not enough to get you to 2000 for quite some time, because you can't attract high rated opponents who boost your rating when you beat them. Even at 2034 I am lucky to attract more than a few 2000+ players a day to my long rapid games.
#20

New players are seeded at 1500.
If many absolute beginners join, then the rating of everybody goes up, because the beginners drop from 1500 to say 1100 and donate rating to the pool.
If many strong players join, then the rating of everybody goes down, because the strong players rise from 1500 to say 2200 and thus drain rating from the pool.
The absolute value of the rating is thus meaningless, only rating difference counts and predicts the expected outcome of a matchup.
It would be possible to seed new players with their FIDE elo, but that would require verification and poses privacy issues.
For variants like 3 check it is even more complicated as no real life comparable rating exists.
Maybe seed new players at the rating they have in regular chess instead of 1500?
Another complication of 3 check is that all time controls there are governed by 1 single rating.
So classical time control 3 check and bullet 3 check which require different skills are gauged by the same rating.

New players are seeded at 1500. If many absolute beginners join, then the rating of everybody goes up, because the beginners drop from 1500 to say 1100 and donate rating to the pool. If many strong players join, then the rating of everybody goes down, because the strong players rise from 1500 to say 2200 and thus drain rating from the pool. The absolute value of the rating is thus meaningless, only rating difference counts and predicts the expected outcome of a matchup. It would be possible to seed new players with their FIDE elo, but that would require verification and poses privacy issues. For variants like 3 check it is even more complicated as no real life comparable rating exists. Maybe seed new players at the rating they have in regular chess instead of 1500? Another complication of 3 check is that all time controls there are governed by 1 single rating. So classical time control 3 check and bullet 3 check which require different skills are gauged by the same rating.

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