- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Why does lichess inflate it's rating ?

#21

@sheckley666 nope they do not own chess but their ratings are the ones people follow. You can start your own federation just as you wish but still the following would be on major FIDE sanctioned events and and only champion of any intrest woudl be the FIDE world chess champion. And if someones how strong youare and you tell xxxx in lichess noone cares. If you say yyyy german DWZ of zzzz of FIDE they sort of know how strong are and can relation to others. Thats why FIDE is golden standard

@sheckley666 nope they do not own chess but their ratings are the ones people follow. You can start your own federation just as you wish but still the following would be on major FIDE sanctioned events and and only champion of any intrest woudl be the FIDE world chess champion. And if someones how strong youare and you tell xxxx in lichess noone cares. If you say yyyy german DWZ of zzzz of FIDE they sort of know how strong are and can relation to others. Thats why FIDE is golden standard
#22

(Not at all) Astonishing in this topic:

Post 8 shows a graph with a clear positive correlation and noone rejects the sentence declining this in the post.

Noone talks about variance.

The OP is left alone with his believe in numbers, geting only accidental help what a rating is on lichess and elsewhere in chess.

The term inflation in relation to a rating is used somewhat special.

Stepwise now:

@petri999 : Do you have a source for your pictures in post #8. Probably there is a Pearson Correlation mentioned if there is a text.

Each rating has, as usual in social sciences data, a variance. Lichess shows one by mentioning the difference of the rating to the last 12 games. So you can see that the rating is a number, but different to physical numbers. This is part of a hint to the 3rd point. 2000 and 1800 may be completly equal, if you know how the scale is calculated. Having this in mind the confusion about this should disappear (even if you don't like it). There are good reasons critizising the way to compute the rating. That's why FIDE Elo is not used everywhere. When introduced it was (imo) the best rating system existing in sports. But knowledge grows slowly and organizations stick to old custums, wrong or right.

Inflation means in a rating system that a number shows? Less skill? Less distance to your peers? ??? There's a steady discussion if the higher ratings of b.e. Magnus Carlsen compared to W. Steinitz compared to M. Botwinnik ... are justified. Today we have ~50 GMs with 2700+, once there were only Fisher, Karpow, Kasparow, with Fischer out of buisiness. Please don't start here a discussion, if Alireza is stronger than Fischer or Morphy!!!!! Take it as a problem not solvable, because it is impossible to manage a match between those players. That's something ratings don't account for.

Positive in this topic:

  • Discussing the meaning of FIDE tournaments and national tournaments by whatever organizer to look at the difference of otb and online chess. I like both.

Btw: I don't care about my rating. A stable genius knows that he has won and every other result in the table is fake news. ;)

(Not at all) Astonishing in this topic: Post 8 shows a graph with a clear positive correlation and noone rejects the sentence declining this in the post. Noone talks about variance. The OP is left alone with his believe in numbers, geting only accidental help what a rating is on lichess and elsewhere in chess. The term inflation in relation to a rating is used somewhat special. Stepwise now: @petri999 : Do you have a source for your pictures in post #8. Probably there is a Pearson Correlation mentioned if there is a text. Each rating has, as usual in social sciences data, a variance. Lichess shows one by mentioning the difference of the rating to the last 12 games. So you can see that the rating is a number, but different to physical numbers. This is part of a hint to the 3rd point. 2000 and 1800 may be completly equal, if you know how the scale is calculated. Having this in mind the confusion about this should disappear (even if you don't like it). There are good reasons critizising the way to compute the rating. That's why FIDE Elo is not used everywhere. When introduced it was (imo) the best rating system existing in sports. But knowledge grows slowly and organizations stick to old custums, wrong or right. Inflation means in a rating system that a number shows? Less skill? Less distance to your peers? ??? There's a steady discussion if the higher ratings of b.e. Magnus Carlsen compared to W. Steinitz compared to M. Botwinnik ... are justified. Today we have ~50 GMs with 2700+, once there were only Fisher, Karpow, Kasparow, with Fischer out of buisiness. Please don't start here a discussion, if Alireza is stronger than Fischer or Morphy!!!!! Take it as a problem not solvable, because it is impossible to manage a match between those players. That's something ratings don't account for. Positive in this topic: - Discussing the meaning of FIDE tournaments and national tournaments by whatever organizer to look at the difference of otb and online chess. I like both. Btw: I don't care about my rating. A stable genius knows that he has won and every other result in the table is fake news. ;)
#23

@Neustart here is the link on original posting https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/data-analysis-lichess-vs-fide-ratings

It is before classical rapid split but blitz is only one that has any predictive value anyway. Unfortunately no link to data itself and analysis is limitted to average difference which is of little interest

@Neustart here is the link on original posting https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/data-analysis-lichess-vs-fide-ratings It is before classical rapid split but blitz is only one that has any predictive value anyway. Unfortunately no link to data itself and analysis is limitted to average difference which is of little interest

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.