I was wondering if an update wasn't due to the anti farming system of lichess. A few days ago I checked the leader-board, and surprisingly someone I've never played before (which is a miracle on itself in antichess community) was dominating the ranks by far: @bruheimo. Although this player is 1st in the ranks, his method of getting there is pretty peculiar. I've really looked in to it, but from what I've seen, he only "farms" low rated (in regards to his rating) players. He's not the only person that I've seen doing this, he just reminded me of it. Thus now the question, I was wondering if there could be a way of incorporating something against this behavior since it isn't fair (for other players) nor representable of ones skill (which I thought to be the reason there is rating in the first place). If other people know of other players doing this feel free to write their names below, maybe we could get a better understanding of the scale of players playing like this.
Atomic: 2414 #7 leaderboard
highest win: 1700. seriously lol
average opponent aint above 1550
last rated atomic loss: 6 months ago.
last rated antichess loss. EIGHT months ago.
@Impenitent. Oh dear. I am not familiar with playing this varient but From the information you both have given it looks like there could be something to this. I wouldn't know for sure though.
As far as posting names however I would advise against it on account of possibly violating the "public shaming" policies. The best way to deal with these suspicious activities would be to directly report them to the moderators. @toadofsky
@NoobBatter if he wasn't provisional or played this week one of the variants (because he only/mostly plays low rated people), he'd be #23 in racing kings, #17 in horde, #7 in atomic, #1 in antichess, #63 in three-check, #25 in kingOfTheHill, #184 in zh, 2xx in ultra, 2xx in 960, bullet and blitz would be the only variants where is isn't in the top 300(, due to him losing there the most??). And like i said, this isn't the only player i remember farming low players to get as high as possible.
And calling out names is indeed maybe not the best plan of action @Kanaan92 (, tbh I completely forgot that rule). But that doesn't take away (i hope) the more at hand message of this thread. :)
One solution may be to reduce the RD requirement to get a ranking:
I guess I should add that if this "problem" can just be solved by reducing this number, I'm not going to ask moderators to "punish" players who are following the rules... I'm just going to ask that the number be reduced.
The technical term for these type of individuals is "Cherry Pickers".
Cherry Pickers are one of the Eight Archetypes of Immorality in the online chess world. I have produced a taxonomy of these that will be published soon.
Their nature is to deliberately seek out only small morsels of food/prey they can swallow in one bite. While this pattern of behaviour is undeniably sinister, their underlying motive is in fact extreme fear. Fear of (1) rating loss (the fundamental belief that they are their rating and a subsequent desire to protect themselves) (2) socially perceived comparison with their real chess peers (3) having to acknowledge their true level to themselves.
Understanding this, it's important that we have compassion with their plight, rather than admonishing them. Yes, we must stop rampant cherry picking. It causes psychological damage to other players and the rating system in general, since glicko2/elo rating adjustment validity is greatly diminished with rating differences over 400. But it's also important that we take the approach of encouraging therapy and rehabilitation. If there's anything to learn from our historical implementation of prison systems, it's that punishment alone does not work to reduce rates of re-offending unless it is paired with deep rehabilitative change.
Warm regards, Burrower 🙏
So... if we just reduced the leaderboard RD filter from 80 to 60, wouldn't that solve the problem? Most players on the leaderboard already have an RD below 60 anyway lichess.org/player/
I'm just wondering if playing very low rated player is interesting in a mathemetical point of view.
Sure, there is a high probability to win any game; but, on the other hand, your rating increases only very slightly - maybe 0,05 points per game -
It means you have to play a LOT of games to earn one sole point, while losing only ONE game is catastrophic.
And losing a game may happen quite easily (a blunder is always possible and we are less concentrated when playing very low opponents)....
One of the mechanics the Cherry Picker exploits is that often rating systems (like FIDE) have a floor/ceiling for maximum points loss and gain. Usually this is a 400 point difference. For instance, if you are 1500 and win against someone 2300, you will gain the same amount of points as playing someone 1900. The inverse is also true, so if a conniving and shameless 2300 Cherry Picker plays someone 1200, they will gain the same amount of points as against someone who is 1900. By Cherry Picking the smallest of cherries he can effectively minimize his risk for an equal gain to playing minus 400 opponents.
Secondly, estimated outcome probabilities simply break down and lose meaningful significance with extreme rating differences. Elo/glicko2 mainly holds statistical validity when opponents are <400 rating points difference, beyond this (assuming good focus and nourishment) the outcomes are much more certain than the estimated probabilities.
Now that this has been clarified, we must discuss the appropriate rehabilitation method for the Cherry Picker in question.
Warm regards, Burrower 🙏
Personally, I think the notion of having a rating-based leaderboard doesn't make sense (because it's prone to the sort of "abuse" we're all noting).
That said, reducing the RD threshold kind of makes the idea work (by requiring players to be highly active, compounding the risks noted in #8). Otherwise I don't see anything wrong with cherry-picking because it does follow the rules as the rules are currently written.