I recently joined lichess and to my surprise my rating here after 80 games is around 300 points above other chess sites that I have played frequently on for so many years.
So my question is... is the rating here somehow inflated to try to make people think that they are improving so they play here instead of other sites?
It's a different rating system with a different pool of players, so ratings will be different from other sites, FIDE, and national rating systems. This is not done to boost our ego's, it's just the way it is. You will find your rating here is quite consistent over time, assuming you are not improving your play.
Even lichess used to be not that much overrated some years ago.
If some mathematical operations affect the 4th position after the point and get it slightly wrong the ratings explode. Or there is no mathematical formula which mirrors this „high-frequency trade“ correctly. Maybe some microscopic adjustments could help, a lower starting value. Whatever. Maybe the formulas are correct for a constant pool, but reality is different: players climb up the ladder, stop, make a new account, climb...
I don’t know. Probably one should have different formulas for different pools and different times.
@Betochon this is umpteents thread of the ratings
- no to ratings pools shoudl expected to have same rating for same playing strengs. rating are relative
- as ratings are relative and they only meant for finding equal strength opponent it does matter what the absolute values are
I believe (but could be wrong) lichess's rating system is designed so the average player's rating is 1500, and chesscom's rating system is designed so the average player's rating is 1200. I think there was a blog post last year about making an adjustment to the rating system to bring it closer to 1500 as it had increased a bit too much.
This is a glicko2 system. It works differently and has a starting value of 1500.
The idea that lichess has higher rating values in order to attract players is beyond naive.
Aside from that, inflation is problematic because it is hard for players to keep track of their progress.
The most consistent value I can find here is % of the rating pool.
FWIW, two different pools of players (on top of that with different rating systems) cannot be related. This includes the same chess site (for instance Lichess) at a different time. Even for FIDE, it is believed that ratings got inflated over time (just look at players over 2700 30 years ago vs now) but, for what I remember, mathematically it is not really quite clear why.
So no, Lichess is not inflating artificially its rating to attract players, it's just a different pool, and yes, it might be that inside ratings slightly grow over time (it might also not be), but the only correct use of ratings is compare yourself to the actual pool now. Unless you can play against the yourself of 12 months ago.
As an opposed example, my already shitty bullet ratings are going down. Is Lichess doing it on purpose?
yes startin rating is 1500 here and 1200 in chess.com which result on different means. Rating system differences do not matter the are all close to zero sum games so if take random population and they start to play then eventually median of rating would be the starting rating regardless strength of people
If there is inflation it is either hickup in parameter of Glicko or more weakplayer entering the system. But any rating system will have either inflation or deflation. For very same reason arguing was Kasparov stronger or weaker thatn Magnu is pointless if done based on ratings. Rating are relative to pool. And pool has changed since then
While i dont believe theyre purposely inflating the ratings to attract more players, this site absolutely has inflated ratings. I noticed when i first was moving up the ranks, i was getting about 8-11 points for wins or losses against players of similar rank which is not close to what most sites do. Since i reached 2100 tho, the points for wins/losses is now about 4-7. I dont know if thats just because its around the 2100 ranks or if they just changed it for everyone.
Anyway, once you play enough games you will notice the difference here from mostly all sites seems to be about 200 points. For me it is almost exactly 200 points on the dot as my highest rank on chess.com is 2001 and my highest here is 2200.