- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

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

#31

@AlligatorChomps said in #30:

Thank you for taking a different slant than those "If you don't like it here, get out of our country (and go to chessDOTcom)" replies.

The exact behavior you desire is how chess.com works. Do not be surprised if people think you'll be happy there.

@AlligatorChomps said in #30: > Thank you for taking a different slant than those "If you don't like it here, get out of our country (and go to chessDOTcom)" replies. The exact behavior you desire is how chess.com works. Do not be surprised if people think you'll be happy there.
#32

@mcgoves said in #31:

The exact behavior you desire is how chess.com works. Do not be surprised if people think you'll be happy there.

And you are exactly wrong about that. They have the same thing. You can start with a rating number, but you end up with the same kind of thing.

I make a chess.com version when I make these accounts. In this one, https://www.chess.com/game/live/74455307664 I let it go to 163 to see how long it takes me to reach 1000. On this one, I wanted to see how I play starting at 1000.

How about lichess members who don't like what I am doing get out and go to chess.com ?

I am here to stay baby, on this account or another.

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

@mcgoves said in #31: > The exact behavior you desire is how chess.com works. Do not be surprised if people think you'll be happy there. And you are exactly wrong about that. They have the same thing. You can start with a rating number, but you end up with the same kind of thing. I make a chess.com version when I make these accounts. In this one, https://www.chess.com/game/live/74455307664 I let it go to 163 to see how long it takes me to reach 1000. On this one, I wanted to see how I play starting at 1000. How about lichess members who don't like what I am doing get out and go to chess.com ? I am here to stay baby, on this account or another. https://i.imgur.com/oWxuqHR.jpg
#33

@AlligatorChomps said in #23:

Ok, I will spell out the math then.

A 1500(?) player plays first game and wins, goes up 250 points.

The 1500(?) player is now seen as 1750. They play a second game and win. Maybe they don't get 250, but they get 200.

The 1500(?) player is now seen as 1950. They play a third game with a 1900 player and lose.

It doesn't matter if the RD being high with the 1500(?) player and the low RD with the 1900 doesn't change the 1900 player's rating much. The point is the 1900 has to potentially play the 1500(?) player when maybe they would rather play someone in their range.

That's just how it has to be, because when someone hasn't played many games, it's not possible for Lichess to know what their actual strength is. But they'll quickly go to their actual rating, and not many 1900 players will play someone so drastically overrated. When I seek a game, probably 99% of the players I get are around my actual strength.

This is the opposite argument people are telling me about lowering my rating, that 1000s don't want to play with me. Well, 1900s probably don't want to play with me either. The answer I see is to NOT inflate the ratings early on. Earn them. 5 wins at 20 points is 100. I see nothing wrong with this.

Starting at 1000 is just as arbitrary as starting at 1500, and would only lower the ratings of the whole site. Starting at a low RD as you suggest is just absurd.

I think it is a wonderful setup for 2000+ players. The deviation between 1000-1500 is so much different than 2000-2500. Even when you become a GM at 2500, many don't stay at 2500 or move into that 2700-2750 super GM level.

Think of kids growing up. They start out small and can't pick up mom and dad. As they get older in their teens, it's possible. By high school no problem. Their strength then bottoms out when comparing non-weightlifters.

Look at Mishra Abimanyu now and his performance in the Spring classic. He became the youngest GM because he played a certain pool of players at a certain strength. Now he is playing a much tougher crowd. He is the lowest rated and at the bottom of the cross table.

This is similar to NMs not performing as well as IMs. The NM title only reflects their country's performance, while the IM title reflects a more accurate assessment. Both Mishra and the NM are "overrated" with respects to playing strength. So, I find a better assessment would be Mishra has the GM title in the first division of players. The second division would be those that win against 2600 GMs (or maybe even break it up into 2500, 2550, and 2600 by 50s instead which would definitely work better for women's chess).

It's true OTB ratings have probably become inflated over the years, but it's not easy to get the GM title and Mishra has certainly earned it. You could argue that more titles should be introduced (e.g., make the Super GM title official), but that seems unrelated to this discussion.

I hope they don't. I hope they listen to what I am stating here. I hope they try it out. I hope they don't resort to benign actions which don't help anyone.

If we are here to play chess, let's play chess. I am not telling you that you have to do what I am saying or you can't do what you want when playing chess, but you are definitely telling me I can't do what I want.

What you want to do is against the Lichess TOS for a good reason, so you are correct, I am indeed telling you you can't do that.

Anyway, I think this will be my last reply to you. Clearly you aren't listening to anything anyone's telling you, so it's just a waste of time and energy.

@AlligatorChomps said in #23: > Ok, I will spell out the math then. > > A 1500(?) player plays first game and wins, goes up 250 points. > > The 1500(?) player is now seen as 1750. They play a second game and win. Maybe they don't get 250, but they get 200. > > The 1500(?) player is now seen as 1950. They play a third game with a 1900 player and lose. > > It doesn't matter if the RD being high with the 1500(?) player and the low RD with the 1900 doesn't change the 1900 player's rating much. The point is the 1900 has to potentially play the 1500(?) player when maybe they would rather play someone in their range. That's just how it has to be, because when someone hasn't played many games, it's not possible for Lichess to know what their actual strength is. But they'll quickly go to their actual rating, and not many 1900 players will play someone so drastically overrated. When I seek a game, probably 99% of the players I get are around my actual strength. > This is the opposite argument people are telling me about lowering my rating, that 1000s don't want to play with me. Well, 1900s probably don't want to play with me either. The answer I see is to NOT inflate the ratings early on. Earn them. 5 wins at 20 points is 100. I see nothing wrong with this. Starting at 1000 is just as arbitrary as starting at 1500, and would only lower the ratings of the whole site. Starting at a low RD as you suggest is just absurd. > I think it is a wonderful setup for 2000+ players. The deviation between 1000-1500 is so much different than 2000-2500. Even when you become a GM at 2500, many don't stay at 2500 or move into that 2700-2750 super GM level. > > Think of kids growing up. They start out small and can't pick up mom and dad. As they get older in their teens, it's possible. By high school no problem. Their strength then bottoms out when comparing non-weightlifters. > > Look at Mishra Abimanyu now and his performance in the Spring classic. He became the youngest GM because he played a certain pool of players at a certain strength. Now he is playing a much tougher crowd. He is the lowest rated and at the bottom of the cross table. > > This is similar to NMs not performing as well as IMs. The NM title only reflects their country's performance, while the IM title reflects a more accurate assessment. Both Mishra and the NM are "overrated" with respects to playing strength. So, I find a better assessment would be Mishra has the GM title in the first division of players. The second division would be those that win against 2600 GMs (or maybe even break it up into 2500, 2550, and 2600 by 50s instead which would definitely work better for women's chess). It's true OTB ratings have probably become inflated over the years, but it's not easy to get the GM title and Mishra has certainly earned it. You could argue that more titles should be introduced (e.g., make the Super GM title official), but that seems unrelated to this discussion. > I hope they don't. I hope they listen to what I am stating here. I hope they try it out. I hope they don't resort to benign actions which don't help anyone. > > If we are here to play chess, let's play chess. I am not telling you that you have to do what I am saying or you can't do what you want when playing chess, but you are definitely telling me I can't do what I want. What you want to do is against the Lichess TOS for a good reason, so you are correct, I am indeed telling you you can't do that. Anyway, I think this will be my last reply to you. Clearly you aren't listening to anything anyone's telling you, so it's just a waste of time and energy.
#34

@AlligatorChomps said in #32:

How about lichess members who don't like what I am doing get out and go to chess.com ?
It is you, who has been warned by lichess ;)

@AlligatorChomps said in #32: > How about lichess members who don't like what I am doing get out and go to chess.com ? It is you, who has been warned by lichess ;)
#35

@AsDaGo said in #33:

Starting at 1000 is just as arbitrary as starting at 1500, and would only lower the ratings of the whole site.

That is the most intelligent thing I have read yet on this site.

"If you have a lichess rapid rating of 1800, don’t expect to score an 1800 performance at your first USCF event. Your rating will map to roughly 1335 USCF. The complete data set below maps all lichess ratings to their OTB averages across our survey results." - https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison/#lichessotb

Yes, the whole site needs to be lowered. I don't want my rating to be inflated by 500 points.

@AsDaGo said in #33: > Starting at 1000 is just as arbitrary as starting at 1500, and would only lower the ratings of the whole site. That is the most intelligent thing I have read yet on this site. "If you have a lichess rapid rating of 1800, don’t expect to score an 1800 performance at your first USCF event. Your rating will map to roughly 1335 USCF. The complete data set below maps all lichess ratings to their OTB averages across our survey results." - https://chessgoals.com/rating-comparison/#lichessotb Yes, the whole site needs to be lowered. I don't want my rating to be inflated by 500 points.
#38

Lichess does not understand how people think. For example, you're not trolling people. You sound reasonable.

Lichess does not understand how people think. For example, you're not trolling people. You sound reasonable.

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