I literally get black *all the time* against certain people in Arenas. I am also a large Atomic Chess fanatic, so the color a player uses can determine the results greatly. This tells me that there obviously is not a "random color" system: Does anyone know why this is?
Not sure. Also, why is it so slow? I was playing in a tourney with 4 friends (it was just us) and it took 30 seconds to pair us up!
I've also noticed that more often than not, I'm paired against people who are 1600-1700 in 960, yet they are 2000-2100 in standard chess. It's ridiculous. I think there's some confirmation bias involved, though. You may be only noticing the times when you get black, just as it's possible that I'm simply noticing only the times when my opponent is strong in other areas but similar to my rating in 960.
Why do people complain so much about a free server?
@sparowe14 Human beings are exceptionally prone to a myriad of cognitive biases.
@Aollonian well said, and there is a privileged subset who think everything should be exactly the way they want it to be
Ganito kasi yan kapatid kapag palage kang itim ibig sabihin nun mahina yung kalaro mo kaya ka nilagay sa itim kase ang pute siya ang unang titira
Kapag ikaw naman ang pute ibig sabihin malakas ang ang kalaro mo
Nakadepende naman ito sa rating ng kalaro mo pati sa iyo
Kung minalas ka naman eh kase siya lang ang naka-online na makakalaro mo sa time control kung konti lang ang manlalaro madalas ganun mangyayare
Kapag ikaw naman ang pute ibig sabihin malakas ang ang kalaro mo
Nakadepende naman ito sa rating ng kalaro mo pati sa iyo
Kung minalas ka naman eh kase siya lang ang naka-online na makakalaro mo sa time control kung konti lang ang manlalaro madalas ganun mangyayare
@Puredication Pairing gives color assignments randomly, but a common misconception is that the pairing will give exactly half games with white and black. Randomness doesn't guarantee that each outcome will happen at a 50/50 rate, and having a series of games where you play as black isn't proof that the pairing system is rigged. Theoretically randomness should give an equal number of games as each color in the long run but there is no guarantee of this in reality.
@Aollonian I think that chess960 ratings are usually lower than standard chess because fewer people play the variant and usually higher level players play them so there is more competition for rating points than in standard chess.
@Aollonian I think that chess960 ratings are usually lower than standard chess because fewer people play the variant and usually higher level players play them so there is more competition for rating points than in standard chess.
@Serial_Checkmater Yeah tbh I suspect that's also true and have thought of that as well. The pool is probably a factor, but that doesn't stop me from noticing every single time I lose or am losing to someone they always seem some 400+ points higher in normal chess -.-
ratings across variants: (understood as skill)
First I have not played any variant but once or twice against computer, to get some taste.
Aren't the variants meant to explore sufficiently different games (we don't have a continuum of variants).
I assume that at some point the interest lies in the difference not in the board color, or the name of the pieces, but how the nature of the game is different, it mechanics, its objective, .... hell, anybody knows how variants emerge and become popular enough to be played on lichess?.
Assuming that one reaches a certain level in one variant. That would be a mixture of internalized skills (sub-conscious), and some conscious knowledge, pruned for applicability to that variant. "theory", as conscious knowledge, would be clearly not the same across variants, making that part of contribution to the rating not very transferable.
Now, for the most interesting question: The internalized skills, that which represents a model of the game mechanics as tested over all the games ever played by the player, a model that is distributed somehow in the synapses on the player, working in concert or collaboration with the generally applicable logic model that has been learned before even playing the first game of chess (I suspect when learning to walk, and manipulate objects that can fall and bounce, or physical object mutual spatial obstruction, like fitting a solid square into an empty square tightly). The problem with that skill, is that it is not very conscious, and it is difficult to separate favorable innate talent to develop it, from the extent of exposure in development to chess playing.
So there are two lines of questions, I can distinguish. One would be, how much of one's rating is due to consciously retrievable education, non-conscious internalized education, and innate ability to learn and improve given the same education, respectively.
that's the nature versus nurture aspect.
The other one, is how much of internalized model for one variant can be transferable to the other? That is inherent to the difference between the variants. How different are the mechanics or other aspects that make us call it a significant variant.
Except for the extreme case of: "it is all innate", nothing of the skill level is learnable, in one way or the other, then no, ratings should not be the same after enough games (to measure that innate ability).
Otherwise, and that is what most of us would agree with, that a lot of the rating is due to development and adult learning, then another scale of time evolution is needed (not just the number of games needed to narrow the uncertainty in the rating), one can't expect the learned skills in one variant to automatically be reflected into another. A 20 year experience in standard chess tournaments should not be expected to carry over instantaneously, to a significant variant.
We are left with the question of how different are variants, really? (in terms of learned skills, or the time to reconfigure the learned skills).
Sorry I had to go to that length just to output this. I just wanted to consider a bunch of unspoken assumptions or angles that could prevent the reader from agreeing. I mean trying to cover. There are unknown, and possibly, I should have gone sleeping instead of writing this.
First I have not played any variant but once or twice against computer, to get some taste.
Aren't the variants meant to explore sufficiently different games (we don't have a continuum of variants).
I assume that at some point the interest lies in the difference not in the board color, or the name of the pieces, but how the nature of the game is different, it mechanics, its objective, .... hell, anybody knows how variants emerge and become popular enough to be played on lichess?.
Assuming that one reaches a certain level in one variant. That would be a mixture of internalized skills (sub-conscious), and some conscious knowledge, pruned for applicability to that variant. "theory", as conscious knowledge, would be clearly not the same across variants, making that part of contribution to the rating not very transferable.
Now, for the most interesting question: The internalized skills, that which represents a model of the game mechanics as tested over all the games ever played by the player, a model that is distributed somehow in the synapses on the player, working in concert or collaboration with the generally applicable logic model that has been learned before even playing the first game of chess (I suspect when learning to walk, and manipulate objects that can fall and bounce, or physical object mutual spatial obstruction, like fitting a solid square into an empty square tightly). The problem with that skill, is that it is not very conscious, and it is difficult to separate favorable innate talent to develop it, from the extent of exposure in development to chess playing.
So there are two lines of questions, I can distinguish. One would be, how much of one's rating is due to consciously retrievable education, non-conscious internalized education, and innate ability to learn and improve given the same education, respectively.
that's the nature versus nurture aspect.
The other one, is how much of internalized model for one variant can be transferable to the other? That is inherent to the difference between the variants. How different are the mechanics or other aspects that make us call it a significant variant.
Except for the extreme case of: "it is all innate", nothing of the skill level is learnable, in one way or the other, then no, ratings should not be the same after enough games (to measure that innate ability).
Otherwise, and that is what most of us would agree with, that a lot of the rating is due to development and adult learning, then another scale of time evolution is needed (not just the number of games needed to narrow the uncertainty in the rating), one can't expect the learned skills in one variant to automatically be reflected into another. A 20 year experience in standard chess tournaments should not be expected to carry over instantaneously, to a significant variant.
We are left with the question of how different are variants, really? (in terms of learned skills, or the time to reconfigure the learned skills).
Sorry I had to go to that length just to output this. I just wanted to consider a bunch of unspoken assumptions or angles that could prevent the reader from agreeing. I mean trying to cover. There are unknown, and possibly, I should have gone sleeping instead of writing this.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.