@petri999 , does chess metric send bad players ( first 10 games losers) to " Gulag" forever. 😁😆
# post 16.
So all my rating gain was wiped out again, when I lost to the 442nd strongest under-16 player on the planet, with a FIDE rating of 2094 https://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=4298748 After his 44 games of 3 check, the ratings system at lichess has decided his established, non-provisional rating is 1887. So he must be a 3 check noob you think? No, he played the strongest opening for white, with the first 8 moves all Stockfish opening theory. And he completely outplayed me. The rating system is just a joke. I'm playing a guy with top 500 on the planet chess skills and I lose eight points for 1 loss. I'm not even going to exclamation mark that. I'm just weary of it all.
@Aceno0b
"I'm playing a guy with top 500 on the planet chess skills and I lose eight points for 1 loss."
It doesn't matter how strong he is in OTB chess and that he is number #442 within under-16. He had a 3-check rating which was 200 points lower than yours so you are going to lose more rating points when you lose the game. This is completely normal.
"The rating system is just a joke."
No it isn't. You are a bit too fixated with your rating.
Also you lost 8 points to that player. So, no, he did not destroy your rating.
It is completely normal in a broken system, yes. It would be completely abnormal in a working system. I'm tired of all these people saying rating doesn't matter. Your rating and its long-term trend is (or should be) an objective reflection of your skill level. What you say is exactly the same as: your skill level doesn't matter. Well it does, to me (and to anyone serious). And because there are no 3 check ratings in the real world, it is doubly important.
Rating systems measure performance, not skill. You can't measure skill as it does not correlate with any real world metric. Performance is used to approximate skill, but that's the best it can do. If one applies oneself, your rating can match your skill, but that's it.
Magnus Carlsen may be the most skillful player in the world, but the only reason he is the world number one and world champion is because of his performance over time. It also doesn't matter how skillful Roger Federer is, if he doesn't perform, he won't win any grand slams.
@HellevatorOperator He wiped out the 1 point I had gained overall during the last 10 games and left me on -8 points. And eleven 5 min+17 sec games is all the opponents I could find today. So he wiped out the measly reward for a day's effort, and it will take me half a day to win back the further 8 points lost.
But it's best not to talk to the general populace. Have fun with your life man, I feel the need for some social distancing.
Okay, man.
Oh stop talking semantic nonsense. What is going to determine your level of performance, but for your skill level? Yes, blah, blah, you can have off days, I hear the semantics forming in your mind. But as a measurement over time, your rating - or performance - will be determined by your skill level.
Are you even reading what I'm saying? You say: "Magnus Carlsen may be the most skillful player in the world, but the only reason he is the world number one is because of his performance over time." And I SPECIFIED before you said that: "Your rating and its long-term trend is (or should be) an objective reflection of your skill level." God, being trapped in an elevator with you.... [redacted due to the lichess policy of enforcing niceness]
Stay stuck in your fantasy world where your rating performance is not your fault.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.