The top 1% of players have a special trophy on their profile page. I'm assuming that this is (ranking/total players)*100?
As we appear to have 1000 new players per day, does this not devalue the "top 1%"? Would it not be better to have a top 1000 players full stop?
Just because you have a greater pool of players doesn't devalue the fact you're in the top 1%. If anything, it shows more accurately what the top 1% of the chess playing world is. I reckon the true top 1% is between 1800 - 2000 somewhere.
What devalues it is multiple accounts from 2xxx players who just want to try and get as many accounts as possible into the top 1% bracket, then never play those accounts again.
You may be right...
I've always thought that we should have a one account per player policy at lichess. This would be easily implemented by having sign up using email address, FB account or whatever. This would also help stop cheating, because it would be a pain in the backside for those who are discovered to have to get another email address constantly before they can get another account.
Even better would be to use IP Addresses. I can't imagine a good reason NOT to do so!
...though, there are so many in the top 1% now that there's also an extra trophy for the top 0.1% - and at this rate, in the next few weeks, there'll need to be a third for the top 0.01% :D
Thibault wants to produce the site to be as free, open and accessible as possible. I'm supportive of this, to be honest. It's nice not having to go through the pointless bullshit of signing up with your email everywhere. It's part of the open source nature of the site. I think, though, you're generally right, users should be limited to say, something like 3 or 5 accounts. I can understand one or two accounts - a slow games and a bullet games account. Or giving cheaters a second chance to redeem themselves. But more than 5 accounts seems pointless, especially when they're all the exact same rating as your current account.
I think 3 is enough for anyone at any one time!
Anybody can create a temporary email address in seconds.
Limitation by IP is out of question, because of schools, offices, cybers, houses, and any kind of shared Internet connection.
Email verification would slow down the process of opening a new account.
Lichess does seem to have a bigger problem with cheating than other serious chess sites I've come across. The ease of instant access means that cheats can just open another account, and barring cheats is effectively pointless.
I wonder how many of the thousand or so new accounts we've had since yesterday are simply cheats going round in circles or multiple users...?
If this isn't the answer, there must be another... the status quo is simply not right, imho.
All accounts that display: «This account is closed» should be deleted or removed from the total. Also, exempt or separate the labeled cheaters from the total count. This would shrink the totals and create a meticulous standard count.
Is there a count displayed of how many cheaters are on any chess website?
Maybe Lichess can set a new precedence and display some type of participant statistic, like the number of detected cheaters, the number of casual people, number of beginners, experts and masters on this website. This might end the assumptions of what type of players are on this particular website.
Toscani, I like those suggestions of being able to have statistics.
I know that repeat offenders are IP banned, which makes it more difficult for them to offend in the future (as proxy use is unavailable here, I think).
I agree that closed accounts should be pruned, with the usernames freed up again. I have a feeling that they are auto-deleted after 6 months. But I'm not sure.
I definitely like the idea of having statistic information up detailing how many users were IP banned, how many detected as engines, the %age of people who are active (sign in at least once a week), the %age of people below the ranges of 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000, 2200, 2400, 2600, 2800 - perhaps expressed as a real time updating bell curve.
