Why there is no rating distribution for correspondence chess? • page 1/1 • Lichess Feedback • lichess.org

Why there is no rating distribution for correspondence chess?
http://cs.lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/correspondence

Why there is no rating distribution for correspondence chess? http://cs.lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/correspondence

Chessatom

#2

I don't know, I had the same question. Maybe not enough correspondence players with non-provisional rating? Or maybe simply because a developer forgot.

Clarkey

#3

Or because correspondence is the most prolific and unmoderatable in regards to cheating, and to make it less of a competition all forms of leaderboards have been removed.

Solal35

#4

http://fr.lichess.org/qa/422/were-the-correspondence-trophys-and-top-ten-players-removed-from-lichess

Jyr

#5

This is just undermining correspondence chess. Now they even made cheating easier (http://cs.lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/android-app-correspondence-analysis-board-computer-assistance). None of the arguments for it sound valid.

people play it as blitz so they are losing. Some people play blitz like bullet, should we remove ladder and trophies too?
Cannot control cheater. Will this really reduce number of cheaters or we have to play cheater and have spoiled the competitive part.
Correspondence is my favourite part of a chess and it's shame it isn't good on my favourite chess site. They should bring the distribution back. At least it would be clearly visible how bad the cheating problem is. They should try to solve other things with it.
People are constantly losing on time. It would be nice be able to set in seek, that you opponent should have less than x% of loses on time.
Rating should be established after 12 games (avg. opponent +-factor*success_rate). Til then it should be 1500. Players shouldnt be able to get in 2000 just by winning to games in such a time control, when games are not that frequent. In blitz it get right after x games but play x games in correspondence takes more than a few minutes.

This is just undermining correspondence chess. Now they even made cheating easier (http://cs.lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/android-app-correspondence-analysis-board-computer-assistance). None of the arguments for it sound valid. - people play it as blitz so they are losing. Some people play blitz like bullet, should we remove ladder and trophies too? - Cannot control cheater. Will this really reduce number of cheaters or we have to play cheater and have spoiled the competitive part. Correspondence is my favourite part of a chess and it's shame it isn't good on my favourite chess site. They should bring the distribution back. At least it would be clearly visible how bad the cheating problem is. They should try to solve other things with it. - People are constantly losing on time. It would be nice be able to set in seek, that you opponent should have less than x% of loses on time. - Rating should be established after 12 games (avg. opponent +-factor*success_rate). Til then it should be 1500. Players shouldnt be able to get in 2000 just by winning to games in such a time control, when games are not that frequent. In blitz it get right after x games but play x games in correspondence takes more than a few minutes.

garciam

#6

can we get an answer from a moderator to say whether or not correspondence chess has anti cheating measures in place ?

Ge0n

#7

I would also like to throw in with all the 'bring back distribution / trophies' for correspondence comments.

Sure it's not perfect, but nothing is. At least with the stats you could have some measure of transparency.

Saying people often play like blitz is also a bad argument - if so it just gives a natural edge to the players who take it seriously and take time over their moves - as it should be.

Also - I often play correspondence here and on chess.com and I regularly win meaning the cheaters can't be trying too hard...

I would also like to throw in with all the 'bring back distribution / trophies' for correspondence comments. Sure it's not perfect, but nothing is. At least with the stats you could have some measure of transparency. Saying people often play like blitz is also a bad argument - if so it just gives a natural edge to the players who take it seriously and take time over their moves - as it should be. Also - I often play correspondence here and on chess.com and I regularly win meaning the cheaters can't be trying too hard...