What is the logic of lichess rating giving system ?

@boilingFrog said in #30:

@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 ...

Thanks, a corollary of the other then. or under the hood of the other, tailored advertising being the original driving force allowed by individual use, but same level of trading.

@EmaciatedSpaniard said in #24:

@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?

In OTB chess there is no such thing as an untitled 2600 player. They are either GM IM or FM. There are no hidden genuis' in OTB chess. In comparison to online chess where they seem to thrive surprisingly.

Lots of weight on the player shoulders above certain rating values.... Do they have time to enjoy chess?

@dboing said in #33:

Lots of weight on the player shoulders above certain rating values.... Do they have time to enjoy chess?

Probably more then anybody can enjoy the 1 0 pool on Lichess. After all at least they have a potentially honest game eh!?

well in my strate of the pools, I don't have to worry about dishonest games. who would be so talented as to maintain a below glory rating in such a subtle manner as not to get caught.

Edit: also to think about it. There is something absurd about anonymous alias cheating to get a rating. For the anonymous point of view what would be the difference between a well maintained dishonest rating and the same rating. I guess what may be angering is sporadic use of engine above expected rating.

but that is also kind of absurd, with many games.

@dboing said in #29:

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).

No. Simply no. Online ratings are almost random in certain pools. Like the 1 0 pool has no seemingly quantifiable difference between ratings there is seemingly no real balance of the group. That to me seems obvious from experience. In OTB these differences are much more clear cut. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

@Firegoat7 said in #36:

No. Simply no. Online ratings are almost random in certain pools. Like the 1 0 pool has no seemingly quantifiable difference between ratings there is seemingly no real balance of the group. That to me seems obvious from experience. In OTB these differences are much more clear cut. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

I lost you or you lost me. what bad news? seeing your adversary is really clear cut difference I would bet.

I do not get the conclusion though. I am arguing with the random mixing in mind actually. what does it matter who's who. only the effective rating is the promise of a certain level of struggle or fun. not who's having the rating.

Full disclosure: I only do random when a serial opponent or I have dropped the continued rematch sequence, and have time to go back up on my parallel number of correspondence games. But I can think about other people's expereince and extrapolate with information gathered here in discussions.

@dboing said in #23:

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

I understood that. I am the canary in the coal mine. If evolution is a meaningless/meaningful experiment based upon false premises that never get challenged then how do you know where the value lies? Personally I see no satisfaction in believing in something like a rating system if it has little integrity as a system of measurement. In chess messing with merit should never be tolerated but clearly there seem to be technological exceptions to the rule ie unethical.

@Firegoat7 said in #38:

I understood that. I am the canary in the coal mine. If evolution is a meaningless/meaningful experiment based upon false premises that never get challenged then how do you know where the value lies? Personally I see no satisfaction in believing in something like a rating system if it has little integrity as a system of measurement. In chess messing with merit should never be tolerated but clearly there seem to be technological exceptions to the rule ie unethical.

As a selfish measure of my quality of play, I agree I would like its premises to be very sound. But I don't know the proportion of cheaters necessary to change the population basis of such competitive random pairings dominated rating system. I think it only matters because of personal identification. And that is not applicable. Unless developping a forum persona on the same alias as your playing, some attributes could be associated and some integrity might emerge as an issue. in the forum perhaps.

But as random paring expected/ing player, I am not sure that the crude averaing over many skills rating system is flawed or distorted as such. It is a crude promise of game difficulty level. I don't expect it to be a destiny or self-esteem value.

I worry though that I would not get a good rating enough to be getting good games, because my rating would promise less interesting game. But mostly it should be a measure of behavior, not self­.

I think you ascribe too much to online rating @Firegoat7 .
it is as @dboing says nothing more then an indication of the approximate strength of an opponent. It is mathematically determined from wins and losses of everyone in the pool. There is no merit in a certain rating. In OTB play you are an individual sitting across from another individual. You have an existence outside of the moves on the board, there can be merit in your behavior towards others in such a setting.