- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

What's wrong with deflating my inflated rating and working my way up?

#1

I would like to start at 1000 and then work my way up, perhaps by 10s or 20s. I don't like the idea of jumping my rating 100s of points. There is no way to know who you are playing. However, if you play some initial games, get out of the stupid "?" status, you play people who seem more legit.

Another thing I noticed is these early games with people who love to stall. Even if you win, you will have 8 minutes left on the clock while they are stalling until about 3:00. Then, they blitz and blunder.

So I got this from lichess, even after winning some subsequent games.

https://i.imgur.com/RdPjBYj.jpg

If I really wanted to mess with the system, why stop at 1000? I am just trying to get to the +10 to +20 rating point stage so I can focus more on the games. I am not interested in playing stallers or cheaters who will use it to jack up their ratings.

It's not something I want to do, but I also don't want to gain or lose 250 points my first game. Give me a game with 10-20 points. That's 10 games to get 100. I think that is more realistic.

I would like to start at 1000 and then work my way up, perhaps by 10s or 20s. I don't like the idea of jumping my rating 100s of points. There is no way to know who you are playing. However, if you play some initial games, get out of the stupid "?" status, you play people who seem more legit. Another thing I noticed is these early games with people who love to stall. Even if you win, you will have 8 minutes left on the clock while they are stalling until about 3:00. Then, they blitz and blunder. So I got this from lichess, even after winning some subsequent games. https://i.imgur.com/RdPjBYj.jpg If I really wanted to mess with the system, why stop at 1000? I am just trying to get to the +10 to +20 rating point stage so I can focus more on the games. I am not interested in playing stallers or cheaters who will use it to jack up their ratings. It's not something I want to do, but I also don't want to gain or lose 250 points my first game. Give me a game with 10-20 points. That's 10 games to get 100. I think that is more realistic.
#2

There's no point in having ratings if people are able to throw games and then mess up other player's ratings when they lose to somebody whose rating doesn't properly estimate their strength as a player. I reckon your rating is probably 400, perhaps more, below your real strength. If I was taking my rating seriously, I really wouldn't want to play you.

I'm really pleased that lichess doesn't allow speedrunning- it relies on misleading opponents and encourages really odd ideas of what ratings are and what they do.

But there are options for people who just want to focus on games and find rating a distraction. You can play casual games, or perhaps even better, you can switch off ratings so you're just playing games and not being distracted.

There's no point in having ratings if people are able to throw games and then mess up other player's ratings when they lose to somebody whose rating doesn't properly estimate their strength as a player. I reckon your rating is probably 400, perhaps more, below your real strength. If I was taking my rating seriously, I really wouldn't want to play you. I'm really pleased that lichess doesn't allow speedrunning- it relies on misleading opponents and encourages really odd ideas of what ratings are and what they do. But there are options for people who just want to focus on games and find rating a distraction. You can play casual games, or perhaps even better, you can switch off ratings so you're just playing games and not being distracted.
#3

You don't need to game the rating system, it already works well. When you have a low RD (for example, when you first join), you might gain a lot of rating when you win a game, but you'll also lose a lot when you lose a game. When your rating is no longer provisional, that's probably your actual level.

As for what's wrong with deflating your rating, I'm surprised you don't find it obvious. You complain about playing stallers and cheaters, and yet you can't put yourself in your opponent's shoes. People play on Lichess to play chess, not to have someone throw the game to them just so they can artificially deflate their rating.

Hopefully you'll stop sandbagging now (which is against the TOS, by the way), or you'll be banned and rightly so.

You don't need to game the rating system, it already works well. When you have a low RD (for example, when you first join), you might gain a lot of rating when you win a game, but you'll also lose a lot when you lose a game. When your rating is no longer provisional, that's probably your actual level. As for what's wrong with deflating your rating, I'm surprised you don't find it obvious. You complain about playing stallers and cheaters, and yet you can't put yourself in your opponent's shoes. People play on Lichess to play chess, not to have someone throw the game to them just so they can artificially deflate their rating. Hopefully you'll stop sandbagging now (which is against the TOS, by the way), or you'll be banned and rightly so.
#4

The rating number is supposed reflect the strength of a player. If you sandbag your rating to a certain threshold and then start climbing your way up you're basically cheating the system and at the same time you're also cheating your future opponents.
Because they expect to play a 1000 while actually they're potentially playing someone whose rating should be higher.

Now, I'm not sure that's your case, you're probably just ignoring how a rating system works. Even though you still agreed to the terms of service when creating your account, so you should be aware of what you signed, but most people don't do it sadly.

In substance, the rating system is designed to pair people of similar level and to do so players have to start playing rated games against players of different skill level at the start.
At the beginning it is normal to win/lose hundreds of points simply because the system has no idea what your real strength is.
As you play more games the points decrease up to a point where you win/lose only a few.

I would suggest for future and similar issues not to start by voluntarily breaking the rules and unwillingly causing damage, rather stop a minute and either make your own research on why things are happening that way or ask for help.

The rating number is supposed reflect the strength of a player. If you sandbag your rating to a certain threshold and then start climbing your way up you're basically cheating the system and at the same time you're also cheating your future opponents. Because they expect to play a 1000 while actually they're potentially playing someone whose rating should be higher. Now, I'm not sure that's your case, you're probably just ignoring how a rating system works. Even though you still agreed to the terms of service when creating your account, so you should be aware of what you signed, but most people don't do it sadly. In substance, the rating system is designed to pair people of similar level and to do so players have to start playing rated games against players of different skill level at the start. At the beginning it is normal to win/lose hundreds of points simply because the system has no idea what your real strength is. As you play more games the points decrease up to a point where you win/lose only a few. I would suggest for future and similar issues not to start by voluntarily breaking the rules and unwillingly causing damage, rather stop a minute and either make your own research on why things are happening that way or ask for help.
#5

@AlligatorChomps said in #1:

Another thing I noticed is these early games with people who love to stall. Even if you win, you will have 8 minutes left on the clock while they are stalling until about 3:00. Then, they blitz and blunder.

This happens even when you have an established rating. I don't know why. I suspect they are bullet players who can't play slowly. I don't know why they kill so much time before making a move. Maybe it's funny?

Anyway, I saw it more at 1000 than wherever I am now. So don't sandbag so much.

@AlligatorChomps said in #1: > Another thing I noticed is these early games with people who love to stall. Even if you win, you will have 8 minutes left on the clock while they are stalling until about 3:00. Then, they blitz and blunder. This happens even when you have an established rating. I don't know why. I suspect they are bullet players who can't play slowly. I don't know why they kill so much time before making a move. Maybe it's funny? Anyway, I saw it more at 1000 than wherever I am now. So don't sandbag so much.
#6

@Gingersquirrelnuts said in #2:

There's no point in having ratings if people are able to throw games and then mess up other player's ratings when they lose to somebody whose rating doesn't properly estimate their strength as a player. I reckon your rating is probably 400, perhaps more, below your real strength. If I was taking my rating seriously, I really wouldn't want to play you.

None of that is true or what happened. I also don't see the point in having ratings if the points don't go up in a reasonable fashion. As stated and to repeat, I would like to simply start at 1000 and work my way up by increments of 10-20 based on my opponent's rating. 10 games of 10 would get you 100, and that seems like a win win situation.

But there are options for people who just want to focus on games and find rating a distraction. You can play casual games, or perhaps even better, you can switch off ratings so you're just playing games and not being distracted.

That was also not what I stated. I don't care about the ratings. I just want to start at 1000 and work my way up by increments of 10 to 20.

@Gingersquirrelnuts said in #2: > There's no point in having ratings if people are able to throw games and then mess up other player's ratings when they lose to somebody whose rating doesn't properly estimate their strength as a player. I reckon your rating is probably 400, perhaps more, below your real strength. If I was taking my rating seriously, I really wouldn't want to play you. None of that is true or what happened. I also don't see the point in having ratings if the points don't go up in a reasonable fashion. As stated and to repeat, I would like to simply start at 1000 and work my way up by increments of 10-20 based on my opponent's rating. 10 games of 10 would get you 100, and that seems like a win win situation. > But there are options for people who just want to focus on games and find rating a distraction. You can play casual games, or perhaps even better, you can switch off ratings so you're just playing games and not being distracted. That was also not what I stated. I don't care about the ratings. I just want to start at 1000 and work my way up by increments of 10 to 20.
#7

I'll continue my petition to introduce a rank/ladder alongside the rating system, since players will never understand the purpose of the rating system.

I'll continue my petition to introduce a rank/ladder alongside the rating system, since players will never understand the purpose of the rating system.
#8

@AsDaGo said in #3:

You don't need to game the rating system, it already works well.

Apparently, it doesn't.

When you have a low RD (for example, when you first join), you might gain a lot of rating when you win a game, but you'll also lose a lot when you lose a game. When your rating is no longer provisional, that's probably your actual level.

I am not finding that the case. Sometimes, when I create an account I jump to 1700 and even 1900 at times because the pairings gave me that advantage. Then, I fall. Fine, I am not 1900. I am not disputing that. However, when you start at 1500, get to 1700 from one win you are NOT 1300. That is ridiculous pairing. And I am not even talking about stalling or cheating. The number rating change system alone needs improvement.

As for what's wrong with deflating your rating, I'm surprised you don't find it obvious. You complain about playing stallers and cheaters, and yet you can't put yourself in your opponent's shoes. People play on Lichess to play chess, not to have someone throw the game to them just so they can artificially deflate their rating.

I am not doing it to change their rating. When my rating goes down 50-100, theirs up 3-6, they either are that much stronger or they will eventually lose those points within 1-3 games. I on the other hand have to earn back those 50-100 points. Using your words, "I'm surprised you don't find it obvious."

Hopefully you'll stop sandbagging now (which is against the TOS, by the way), or you'll be banned and rightly so.

I just create a new account and play the next new first player. If they don't like me playing to get to 1700 after first game or building up from 1100, then maybe they should rethink how they dish out points (either positive or negative).

I don't control the lichess server. I can only give suggestions that should help pair us up better.

@AsDaGo said in #3: > You don't need to game the rating system, it already works well. Apparently, it doesn't. >When you have a low RD (for example, when you first join), you might gain a lot of rating when you win a game, but you'll also lose a lot when you lose a game. When your rating is no longer provisional, that's probably your actual level. I am not finding that the case. Sometimes, when I create an account I jump to 1700 and even 1900 at times because the pairings gave me that advantage. Then, I fall. Fine, I am not 1900. I am not disputing that. However, when you start at 1500, get to 1700 from one win you are NOT 1300. That is ridiculous pairing. And I am not even talking about stalling or cheating. The number rating change system alone needs improvement. > As for what's wrong with deflating your rating, I'm surprised you don't find it obvious. You complain about playing stallers and cheaters, and yet you can't put yourself in your opponent's shoes. People play on Lichess to play chess, not to have someone throw the game to them just so they can artificially deflate their rating. I am not doing it to change their rating. When my rating goes down 50-100, theirs up 3-6, they either are that much stronger or they will eventually lose those points within 1-3 games. I on the other hand have to earn back those 50-100 points. Using your words, "I'm surprised you don't find it obvious." > Hopefully you'll stop sandbagging now (which is against the TOS, by the way), or you'll be banned and rightly so. I just create a new account and play the next new first player. If they don't like me playing to get to 1700 after first game or building up from 1100, then maybe they should rethink how they dish out points (either positive or negative). I don't control the lichess server. I can only give suggestions that should help pair us up better.
#9

@Deadban said in #4:

The rating number is supposed reflect the strength of a player. If you sandbag your rating to a certain threshold and then start climbing your way up you're basically cheating the system and at the same time you're also cheating your future opponents.

Why isn't it the same thing (opposite of sandbag) to shoot someone's rating up to 1900 and then pummel them back down to 1500? That's pretty sadistic of lichess.

What I am proposing is a rational approach to play 1000 first, move up, play 1020 next, move up, play 1040 next, etc....

Eventually you get to 1100. The next 100 could go by 20s minus the times you lost. So say you won 5 and lost 1. You would have 90 + 5 (the loss). You would have to win 6 more games to get to 1200. If you are that strong it wouldn't take up that much longer. This would make a lot more sense than having a real 1900 player play a first timer who is 1500 but because they have inflated ratings after only 3 games they get paired with that huge discrepancy. My suggestion is to say 50-100 at worst.

Because they expect to play a 1000 while actually they're potentially playing someone whose rating should be higher.

And as detailed above, a 1900 expects to play a 1900 not a 1500 who happened to get lucky their first few games.

Now, I'm not sure that's your case, you're probably just ignoring how a rating system works. Even though you still agreed to the terms of service when creating your account, so you should be aware of what you signed, but most people don't do it sadly.

I don't have a problem recreating an account and getting lucky my first few games. But then we have the same thing the other direction. I would have an inflated 1900 rating and be mismatched that way.

In substance, the rating system is designed to pair people of similar level and to do so players have to start playing rated games against players of different skill level at the start.

Pairing up a 1900 against a 1500 is NOT similar level, just like 1000 with 1500 is not the same. Someone is using selective reasoning here.

At the beginning it is normal to win/lose hundreds of points simply because the system has no idea what your real strength is.

Why would this matter? Are we not getting paired up with humans then? If they are humans, then I ask again, why would a human 1900 want to play a 1500 who has 1900 because they won a few initial games?

I would suggest for future and similar issues not to start by voluntarily breaking the rules and unwillingly causing damage, rather stop a minute and either make your own research on why things are happening that way or ask for help.

I can just create a new account. I instead would prefer to improve the pairings so we don't have to do this.

@Deadban said in #4: > The rating number is supposed reflect the strength of a player. If you sandbag your rating to a certain threshold and then start climbing your way up you're basically cheating the system and at the same time you're also cheating your future opponents. Why isn't it the same thing (opposite of sandbag) to shoot someone's rating up to 1900 and then pummel them back down to 1500? That's pretty sadistic of lichess. What I am proposing is a rational approach to play 1000 first, move up, play 1020 next, move up, play 1040 next, etc.... Eventually you get to 1100. The next 100 could go by 20s minus the times you lost. So say you won 5 and lost 1. You would have 90 + 5 (the loss). You would have to win 6 more games to get to 1200. If you are that strong it wouldn't take up that much longer. This would make a lot more sense than having a real 1900 player play a first timer who is 1500 but because they have inflated ratings after only 3 games they get paired with that huge discrepancy. My suggestion is to say 50-100 at worst. > Because they expect to play a 1000 while actually they're potentially playing someone whose rating should be higher. And as detailed above, a 1900 expects to play a 1900 not a 1500 who happened to get lucky their first few games. > Now, I'm not sure that's your case, you're probably just ignoring how a rating system works. Even though you still agreed to the terms of service when creating your account, so you should be aware of what you signed, but most people don't do it sadly. I don't have a problem recreating an account and getting lucky my first few games. But then we have the same thing the other direction. I would have an inflated 1900 rating and be mismatched that way. > In substance, the rating system is designed to pair people of similar level and to do so players have to start playing rated games against players of different skill level at the start. Pairing up a 1900 against a 1500 is NOT similar level, just like 1000 with 1500 is not the same. Someone is using selective reasoning here. > At the beginning it is normal to win/lose hundreds of points simply because the system has no idea what your real strength is. Why would this matter? Are we not getting paired up with humans then? If they are humans, then I ask again, why would a human 1900 want to play a 1500 who has 1900 because they won a few initial games? > I would suggest for future and similar issues not to start by voluntarily breaking the rules and unwillingly causing damage, rather stop a minute and either make your own research on why things are happening that way or ask for help. I can just create a new account. I instead would prefer to improve the pairings so we don't have to do this.
#10

@mcgoves said in #5:

Anyway, I saw it more at 1000 than wherever I am now. So don't sandbag so much.

I would never, and I never, sandbag after my rating is established. I ALWAYS then work my way up by increments of 6 and up usually. Sometimes it's only 3, but I don't have controls over that nor am I disputing that.

It's funny to see people get so triggered on these words and assume the worst in people. I don't sandbag because I want to. I see no reason to cheat, so I have never done that, and I can't control the system.

Sometimes you put a coin into the slot machine and you get lucky, other times you cash in and try again later.

@mcgoves said in #5: > Anyway, I saw it more at 1000 than wherever I am now. So don't sandbag so much. I would never, and I never, sandbag after my rating is established. I ALWAYS then work my way up by increments of 6 and up usually. Sometimes it's only 3, but I don't have controls over that nor am I disputing that. It's funny to see people get so triggered on these words and assume the worst in people. I don't sandbag because I want to. I see no reason to cheat, so I have never done that, and I can't control the system. Sometimes you put a coin into the slot machine and you get lucky, other times you cash in and try again later.

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