- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Win Streak

#21

Mr. Inventor, your figures are purely theoretical. Today I played a series of classical games against players up to 250 rating points below me, gaining 39 rating points, showing that it is possible to gain significant amounts of rating by “farming”. No doubt if I wanted I could continue “farming”, but that would be, IMO, immoral.

P.S. Lichess mods, don’t ban me! This was simply an experiment, and I will discontinue this foolish behaviour.

Mr. Inventor, your figures are purely theoretical. Today I played a series of classical games against players up to 250 rating points below me, gaining 39 rating points, showing that it is possible to gain significant amounts of rating by “farming”. No doubt if I wanted I could continue “farming”, but that would be, IMO, immoral. P.S. Lichess mods, don’t ban me! This was simply an experiment, and I will discontinue this foolish behaviour.
#23

Mine is 3 games in august 2025
Longest streak: 3 games
from Aug 12, 2025, 4:57 PM to Aug 14, 2025, 4:57 PM

Mine is 3 games in august 2025 Longest streak: 3 games from Aug 12, 2025, 4:57 PM to Aug 14, 2025, 4:57 PM
#24

@IamNOTamod said in #21:

Mr. Inventor, your figures are purely theoretical. Today I played a series of classical games against players up to 250 rating points below me, gaining 39 rating points, showing that it is possible to gain significant amounts of rating by “farming”. No doubt if I wanted I could continue “farming”, but that would be, IMO, immoral.

P.S. Lichess mods, don’t ban me! This was simply an experiment, and I will discontinue this foolish behaviour.

I'm Mr. Inventor. These aren't theoretical calculations. These are long-known facts. It's strange that I have to explain them to anyone other than a beginner. That's why the 400 rule was introduced a long time ago. Without the 400 rule, all professionals would have avoided playing significantly weaker players. For the vast majority of players, playing against weaker players results in a rating loss. This is a 100% fact, long known. But I never once told you that everyone is like this. What makes you think that? Your thinking is wrong. I've always had the perfect formulation: for the vast majority of players this is true (not for everyone). You, in particular, could be the opposite. You could be in the minority for whom the opposite is true. And I'm in the vast majority of players for whom this is true. At all time controls, I've 100% seen the following pattern: the stronger my opponents, the more advantageous it is for me (the weaker they are, the less advantageous it is for me). So much so that:

  • games where I have a 200 or more rating point advantage give me, on average, a loss of 0.43 rating points per game;
  • games where my opponent has a 200 or more rating point advantage give me, on average, a gain of 0.43 (exactly the same now, but that's a fluke; in other periods, it wasn't exactly the same) rating points per game on average;
  • this applies to all time controls;
  • I've played 12,831 games here; the statistics include the last 10,000 rated games (the same was true before that).
@IamNOTamod said in #21: > Mr. Inventor, your figures are purely theoretical. Today I played a series of classical games against players up to 250 rating points below me, gaining 39 rating points, showing that it is possible to gain significant amounts of rating by “farming”. No doubt if I wanted I could continue “farming”, but that would be, IMO, immoral. > > P.S. Lichess mods, don’t ban me! This was simply an experiment, and I will discontinue this foolish behaviour. I'm Mr. Inventor. These aren't theoretical calculations. These are long-known facts. It's strange that I have to explain them to anyone other than a beginner. That's why the 400 rule was introduced a long time ago. Without the 400 rule, all professionals would have avoided playing significantly weaker players. For the vast majority of players, playing against weaker players results in a rating loss. This is a 100% fact, long known. But I never once told you that everyone is like this. What makes you think that? Your thinking is wrong. I've always had the perfect formulation: for the vast majority of players this is true (not for everyone). You, in particular, could be the opposite. You could be in the minority for whom the opposite is true. And I'm in the vast majority of players for whom this is true. At all time controls, I've 100% seen the following pattern: the stronger my opponents, the more advantageous it is for me (the weaker they are, the less advantageous it is for me). So much so that: - games where I have a 200 or more rating point advantage give me, on average, a loss of 0.43 rating points per game; - games where my opponent has a 200 or more rating point advantage give me, on average, a gain of 0.43 (exactly the same now, but that's a fluke; in other periods, it wasn't exactly the same) rating points per game on average; - this applies to all time controls; - I've played 12,831 games here; the statistics include the last 10,000 rated games (the same was true before that).
#25

@IamNOTamod said in #21:

Mr. Inventor, your figures are purely theoretical. Today I played a series of classical games against players up to 250 rating points below me, gaining 39 rating points, showing that it is possible to gain significant amounts of rating by “farming”. No doubt if I wanted I could continue “farming”, but that would be, IMO, immoral.

P.S. Lichess mods, don’t ban me! This was simply an experiment, and I will discontinue this foolish behaviour.

These are the statistics Lichess is currently showing me for my games here:
Opponent strength Rating gain Number of games
Much weaker -0.43 525
Weaker -0.41 1,230
Similar 0.06 6,778
Stronger 0.31 957
Much stronger 0.43 510
Definitions:
Rating gain: The amount of rating points you win or lose when the game ends.
Opponent strength: Rating of your opponent compared to yours. Much weaker:-200, Weaker:-100, Stronger:+100, Much stronger:+200.

@IamNOTamod said in #21: > Mr. Inventor, your figures are purely theoretical. Today I played a series of classical games against players up to 250 rating points below me, gaining 39 rating points, showing that it is possible to gain significant amounts of rating by “farming”. No doubt if I wanted I could continue “farming”, but that would be, IMO, immoral. > > P.S. Lichess mods, don’t ban me! This was simply an experiment, and I will discontinue this foolish behaviour. These are the statistics Lichess is currently showing me for my games here: Opponent strength Rating gain Number of games Much weaker -0.43 525 Weaker -0.41 1,230 Similar 0.06 6,778 Stronger 0.31 957 Much stronger 0.43 510 Definitions: Rating gain: The amount of rating points you win or lose when the game ends. Opponent strength: Rating of your opponent compared to yours. Much weaker:-200, Weaker:-100, Stronger:+100, Much stronger:+200.
#26

@IamNOTamod said in #21:

Mr. Inventor, your figures are purely theoretical. Today I played a series of classical games against players up to 250 rating points below me, gaining 39 rating points, showing that it is possible to gain significant amounts of rating by “farming”. No doubt if I wanted I could continue “farming”, but that would be, IMO, immoral.

P.S. Lichess mods, don’t ban me! This was simply an experiment, and I will discontinue this foolish behaviour.

And this isn't your series from today, just a few games. Your small series is hundreds of times smaller than needed for even rough statistical estimates (even for just you, if we're talking about just you). My statistics are based on 10,000 games. These 10,000 games already provide statistically reliable results. My statistics are reliable relative to me. Yours—even relative to you alone—are unreliable (they need to be based on hundreds of times more games).

@IamNOTamod said in #21: > Mr. Inventor, your figures are purely theoretical. Today I played a series of classical games against players up to 250 rating points below me, gaining 39 rating points, showing that it is possible to gain significant amounts of rating by “farming”. No doubt if I wanted I could continue “farming”, but that would be, IMO, immoral. > > P.S. Lichess mods, don’t ban me! This was simply an experiment, and I will discontinue this foolish behaviour. And this isn't your series from today, just a few games. Your small series is hundreds of times smaller than needed for even rough statistical estimates (even for just you, if we're talking about just you). My statistics are based on 10,000 games. These 10,000 games already provide statistically reliable results. My statistics are reliable relative to me. Yours—even relative to you alone—are unreliable (they need to be based on hundreds of times more games).
#28

@Inventor_1 said in #24:

I'm Mr. Inventor. These aren't theoretical calculations.
What I mean is your ratios are theoretical. E.g. it is unlikely one might go exactly 729-1 against someone 1200 points below oneself. Maybe the stronger player decides not to play the 730th game?

@Inventor_1 said in #24: > I'm Mr. Inventor. These aren't theoretical calculations. What I mean is your ratios are theoretical. E.g. it is unlikely one might go exactly 729-1 against someone 1200 points below oneself. Maybe the stronger player decides not to play the 730th game?
#29

@Inventor_1 said in #26:

And this isn't your series from today, just a few games. Your small series is hundreds of times smaller than needed for even rough statistical estimates (even for just you, if we're talking about just you). My statistics are based on 10,000 games. These 10,000 games already provide statistically reliable results. My statistics are reliable relative to me. Yours—even relative to you alone—are unreliable (they need to be based on hundreds of times more games).
Okay, I'll take that as a challenge!

@Inventor_1 said in #26: > And this isn't your series from today, just a few games. Your small series is hundreds of times smaller than needed for even rough statistical estimates (even for just you, if we're talking about just you). My statistics are based on 10,000 games. These 10,000 games already provide statistically reliable results. My statistics are reliable relative to me. Yours—even relative to you alone—are unreliable (they need to be based on hundreds of times more games). Okay, I'll take that as a challenge!
#30

@IamNOTamod said in #29:

Okay, I'll take that as a challenge!

You can look at your Lichess statistics right now and post the results here. You've played 4858 games on Lichess. That's enough for statistical reliability relative to you. But only relative to you. Relative to the average person—as I've explained to you several times above. You're arguing against 2+2=4. There's no point in arguing there. This is a long-known fact to all, or almost all, professional chess players. People avoided playing against much weaker opponents for decades because of it. And then, to counter this, FIDE came up with Rule 400. It was invented solely for this purpose. I've even explained this to you several times above. And you're not even noticing this on purpose? After all, it 100% refutes your position and 100% confirms mine. That alone, even. That's on top of everything else (for example, the fact that it's stupid to deny that chess is a game that's very prone to draws).

@IamNOTamod said in #29: > Okay, I'll take that as a challenge! You can look at your Lichess statistics right now and post the results here. You've played 4858 games on Lichess. That's enough for statistical reliability relative to you. But only relative to you. Relative to the average person—as I've explained to you several times above. You're arguing against 2+2=4. There's no point in arguing there. This is a long-known fact to all, or almost all, professional chess players. People avoided playing against much weaker opponents for decades because of it. And then, to counter this, FIDE came up with Rule 400. It was invented solely for this purpose. I've even explained this to you several times above. And you're not even noticing this on purpose? After all, it 100% refutes your position and 100% confirms mine. That alone, even. That's on top of everything else (for example, the fact that it's stupid to deny that chess is a game that's very prone to draws).

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