What is the logic of lichess rating giving system ?

the only thing i find interesting about rating system, is not as an optimization game in itself (far from chess core fun, for me), but how it might contain information about evolution as a measure (a very crude measure of many skills aspects that can be used or applied throught the duration of a game and its various contexts, all scooped into a win or lose dependent 1D statistics.

somebody alluded to that. is there really a way to extract evolvers (fluctuators, monotonic, are there emerging characteristic times scales separating or showing true destiny to some hundreth rating)?

I just thought the volatility in glicko was just about uncertainty because of the player population being probed under some time sequence, and lack of renewed probe event of that population, would per model prescription increase uncertainty of the average estimate (not average of time or skill multidim set, just about uncertainty).

But then, I also thought volatility had no influence on the future average changes. just how sure the current average estimate is.

so how can one isolate trends and use that to argue meta chess optimization technique.. geting late i may not make sense.

@dboing said in #21:

so how can one isolate trends and use that to argue meta chess optimization technique.. geting late i may not make sense.

I would suggest this sounds like an ethics problem. In my uniformed opinion, these four things matter 1.Transparency 2. Accountability 3. Creativity and 4.Agency. Reading between the lines, if you truly want to unleash the creative potential of the player base and then measure those evolutionary trends then you have to cater for increased agency.

As a concrete example. In the real OTB chess world unrated 2600 players do not exist. Yet in online chess they exist. I would argue that this is because the social side of online chess is still immature and tends to be dominated by technological solutions. To prove my argument I would simply suggest if you examine the social networks of 2600+ unrated online players you would quite easily be able to legitimise or counter their personal stories.

Now I could be completely wrong of course, but one thing is for certain, as things currently stand on this site there is very little empowerment in agency on this site to unleash that creative potential for the player base to solve these type of problems. In other words transparency ,accountability,creativity and agency are in a constant change and focusing on decentralising power is a necessary aspect for evolution. Yet the player base is situated within a technological institution that controls as a creative necessity. This obviously has ethical implications for everyone involved.

realities.... My question was scientific in nature. But maybe it depends on the many sub cultures still in transition within the population under question.

@Firegoat7
re. #22 I am confused. When you write "unrated 2600+ players" what do you mean? Isn't 2600+ a statement about their rating? And by agency do you mean the player base here has too little power? to control what?

@EmaciatedSpaniard he means that a player with 2600+ ELO can create an account on lichess and it may not be rated 2600+, while irl he would.

those accounts would be marked with a tentative rating wouldn't they? So you know not to trust the rating. Or do you mean he thinks its unethical for people to play on lichess without declaring their ELO with FIDE or some other organization if they have such a rating?

When the app is free the product is you. ~ Richard Stallman

@boilingFrog said in #27:

When the app is free the product is you. ~ Richard Stallman

curious about was is meant by that. not sure. like TV networks offering brain time to advertisers?

in find that lichess really exists. electron and information is a part of reality... what is the need to sanctify a sub-group as being the real thing. "In restricted demographics" would also refer to OTB. I do understand the meaning pointed at, just the choice of wording seems to carry extra stuff.

I am also curious about population numbers. I assume there are non-OTB player getting high ratings online.

I would trust online ratings more than tournament ratings because I assume a good proportion (besides the high number) is the fruit of well mixed random pairings, specially for fast paced time controls (not that it is the same chess skill set though), without pyramidal sub-structure, closer to well mixed tank (with some stratification, i.e. far ratings don't mix much).

Maybe that is why some OTB GM would argue against matches (and their meta chess gaming), I would argue against tournaments... but i really don't care much about who's who. I care about the chess.

@dboing I heard Stallman say that a couple times in a talk he gave about 'freeWare' ...

He means when the app is free, the product is all the data you provide, your digital persona, as it were, hence 'you' yourself ...