Why does lichess inflate it's rating ? • page 2/3 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

FIDE is just one organisation of several which organize chess games and calculate a rating from these. Why do many people regard the FIDE rating as quasi standard? Why not say FIDE rating is deflated?

tpr

#12

#11
FIDE is the international federation of chess. So its elo rating is the official yardstick. National federations regularly adjust their own national elo ratings so as to align these with the FIDE elo.

#11 FIDE is the international federation of chess. So its elo rating is the official yardstick. National federations regularly adjust their own national elo ratings so as to align these with the FIDE elo.

sheckley666

#13

FIDE is a private association of private associations of private clubs. But even if it was an UNO department, it still would be one organiser of chess games from several. They did not invent chess, they do not own it.

petri999

#14

Not all organisation adjust ther ratings. even one could do it only one single point. as the rating scale is different. Like fide classical only takes into account games with with minimun 60min/60move games and if tournament has +2000 players it has to be minimum of 120min/60moves. Finnish rating counts anythign above 15min game to rating just with different k if games are shorter. which make scale of ratings already differ. Britis rating is so different that direct comparison does not work too well.

But fide is the golden standard. others are for local usage. though on weak players national rating are far more accurate as FIDE sanctioned event are less common

Not all organisation adjust ther ratings. even one could do it only one single point. as the rating scale is different. Like fide classical only takes into account games with with minimun 60min/60move games and if tournament has +2000 players it has to be minimum of 120min/60moves. Finnish rating counts anythign above 15min game to rating just with different k if games are shorter. which make scale of ratings already differ. Britis rating is so different that direct comparison does not work too well. But fide is the golden standard. others are for local usage. though on weak players national rating are far more accurate as FIDE sanctioned event are less common

clutchnutz

#15

This is a good question. It's true that FIDE is an entirely different pool (and rating system) than lichess and lichess is an entirely different pool than chess dot com. So obviously there will be differences. But as mentioned in #12, national federations make adjustments to align their ratings to be more in accord with FIDE ratings - so why don't lichess and chess dot com make similar occassional adjustments to make ratings more similar to the FIDE standard?

Why FIDE? Because competitions for the world championship of chess are determined by the FIDE ratings system. Why not at least make online ratings a little more aligned with the bigger picture? There are also many features of lichess that are associated with FIDE titles - the ability to compete in certain tournaments, the opportunity to coach, front page exposure for streamers and simuls, etc. Why not have lichess ratings a bit more scaled to the ratings system of those players who are held in such high regard?

This is a good question. It's true that FIDE is an entirely different pool (and rating system) than lichess and lichess is an entirely different pool than chess dot com. So obviously there will be differences. But as mentioned in #12, national federations make adjustments to align their ratings to be more in accord with FIDE ratings - so why don't lichess and chess dot com make similar occassional adjustments to make ratings more similar to the FIDE standard? Why FIDE? Because competitions for the world championship of chess are determined by the FIDE ratings system. Why not at least make online ratings a little more aligned with the bigger picture? There are also many features of lichess that are associated with FIDE titles - the ability to compete in certain tournaments, the opportunity to coach, front page exposure for streamers and simuls, etc. Why not have lichess ratings a bit more scaled to the ratings system of those players who are held in such high regard?

sheckley666

edited

#16

Why is OTB chess called "real world"? For historical reasons. If internet had existed when chess was invented, nobody would ever have sit together beneath a wooden checkered board and pushed wooden pieces over this board. This is an awkward workaround for the technolopgical shortcomings of former ages.

Also, there is nothing "real" about OTB play. These wooden pieces were never really captured (they don't have a wish for freedom), or beaten (they don't feel any pain) or eaten (maybe if termites were playing chess?) They are a symbol in a game, just like the patterns on a screen.

And why is FIDE the gold standard? Because people consider it to be "official". And why do people do this? Because of historical reasons. Organisations like chess clubs were useful to find enough partners to play chess. National associations were useful to play against players from other towns in your country, and FIDE was useful to play against players from the whole world.

Thus, FIDE was a workaround to overcome the technological shortcomings of the pre-internet era.

Yes, I admit the cheating problem is online more difficult to handle than OTB. But Lichess proves that it can be handled in a way sufficient for 99% of chess players like myself, who are not too competitive.

Why is OTB chess called "real world"? For historical reasons. If internet had existed when chess was invented, nobody would ever have sit together beneath a wooden checkered board and pushed wooden pieces over this board. This is an awkward workaround for the technolopgical shortcomings of former ages. Also, there is nothing "real" about OTB play. These wooden pieces were never really captured (they don't have a wish for freedom), or beaten (they don't feel any pain) or eaten (maybe if termites were playing chess?) They are a symbol in a game, just like the patterns on a screen. And why is FIDE the gold standard? Because people consider it to be "official". And why do people do this? Because of historical reasons. Organisations like chess clubs were useful to find enough partners to play chess. National associations were useful to play against players from other towns in your country, and FIDE was useful to play against players from the whole world. Thus, FIDE was a workaround to overcome the technological shortcomings of the pre-internet era. Yes, I admit the cheating problem is online more difficult to handle than OTB. But Lichess proves that it can be handled in a way sufficient for 99% of chess players like myself, who are not too competitive.

tpr

#17

#16
Many chess players in this internet age long for a resumption of over the board chess with wooden pieces.
Internet chess is more susceptible to cheating.
Over the board chess has more psychology: the look in the eye, the way of sitting in the chair, the way of moving the pieces.
In this internet age we technologically could organise virtual boxing matches with remote sensors, but it hardly would attract any spectators.

#16 Many chess players in this internet age long for a resumption of over the board chess with wooden pieces. Internet chess is more susceptible to cheating. Over the board chess has more psychology: the look in the eye, the way of sitting in the chair, the way of moving the pieces. In this internet age we technologically could organise virtual boxing matches with remote sensors, but it hardly would attract any spectators.

ruzgar9543

#18

Read the big red rectangle before posting please.
lichess.org/faq#high-ratings

Read the big red rectangle before posting please. lichess.org/faq#high-ratings

olt96

#19

@ruzgar9543
And you read my original post where I clearly state that I read the FAQ.

@sheckley666
I disagree completely.
I play online chess a lot, but there is no comparison to the feel of playing otb.
Watching your opponent. Physically moving. Seeing them struggle after you make a good move.
But also the opposite. Getting beaten so badly you wanna get off the chair then and there. The crowd when you are the only board left.
Online chess is cool, but it can't replace otb play

@ruzgar9543 And you read my original post where I clearly state that I read the FAQ. @sheckley666 I disagree completely. I play online chess a lot, but there is no comparison to the feel of playing otb. Watching your opponent. Physically moving. Seeing them struggle after you make a good move. But also the opposite. Getting beaten so badly you wanna get off the chair then and there. The crowd when you are the only board left. Online chess is cool, but it can't replace otb play

sheckley666

edited

#20

@tpr, @olt96 Obviously, you both have lots of OTB experience and many great memories of OTB games. It is clear that for you OTB is the "real thing".
But this does not make it in any way more official than online chess.
IMO, we should not regard online chess as an imitation of OTB chess, but as something completely independant, based on the same idea. Both are "real" with the same right, and there is no reason to adjust the rating of one instance to the other.

@tpr, @olt96 Obviously, you both have lots of OTB experience and many great memories of OTB games. It is clear that for you OTB is the "real thing". But this does not make it in any way more official than online chess. IMO, we should not regard online chess as an imitation of OTB chess, but as something completely independant, based on the same idea. Both are "real" with the same right, and there is no reason to adjust the rating of one instance to the other.