Average opponent {1730.8}
Victories 1230 (69%)
Draws 128 (7%)
Defeats 413 (23%)
Disconnections 2 (0%)
was wondering what this might be (rating-wise) over the course apprx. 1000 games ? Or what is the formula for ratings ?
it means that you are good enough to stop playing unrated and keep 1800+ most of the time
tks maybeacat, I play unrated mostly just to avoid playing vs. programs ... with nothing on the line ie; rating points, tournaments placement, etc. hopefully creates less reason for employing software. If I could recall my log-in code I would just play as anonymous. Don't get me wrong I do like this site!
"hopefully creates less reason for employing software." Who? You?
It looks like Lichess is only calculating the rating against rated players but counting all games. So for instance if I go beat on 9 anonymous players and then lose to a 2700 I would have a 90% performance rating against an average rating of 2700 by Lichess stats.
When you play unrated you make results somewhat meaningless. People are going to be less inclined to take the game seriously and others such as myself may really only play it when inebriated or otherwise unfit to play but still in the mood for a game. So even if you had a real performance result it'd be difficult to derive any meaningful conclusion from it.
If you don't like to play against computers you should play rated.
Because in unrated games one may use computers. And from my experience in playing rated games, there are almost no cheaters. (I haven't played a single game where I think my opponent was cheating)
Of course there's nothing inherently wrong with playing unrated, but as #5 pointed out you can't draw any rating conclusions out of it. (while playing rated not only gives you an accurate lichess rating but also a graph that shows how your rating (and presumable strength) developed)
@Bad_Bishop_Jones You are not accounting for the fact that in unrated against anonymous players, there are no consequences for them cheating and I highly doubt there are more cheaters in rated games than unrated, especially below, say, 2300 rating
Also, #5 is a great post and explains why you can't interprate anything about your rating from those stats. If you want to know your rating without ruining your account history, maybe play ~30 rated games on another account then close it
IMHO, engine use is not a black and white issue, that is, a person uses an engine all the time, or not at all. I believe engine use ranges from once only use through to constant use. The latter players get found out fairly quickly by Lichess but other more stealthy engine users pass under the radar I believe. Also I see odd patterns of players profile with massive and rapid gains at lower ratings up to or beyond 2000 then a gradual decline back to a moderate rating. Many players rating graph is very smooth. Perhaps if a person has a mood disorder with bipolar features, then that might explain large differences in rating of a cyclic nature. People may get annoyed with being beaten in numerous consecutive games then use an engine to give there ratings a bit of a boost. I don't agree with the premise that engine use at lower levels is rare. I think there may be a small but significant proportion of users who climb the ladder with some engine use, stop use to avoid detection then fall off. If they are caught cheating then they may climb back on the ladder with another ID. I can understand being flogged by a 300 point lower player with a provisional rating that may be due to them having a baseline rating of 2000+ and they are heading toward there true rating. I think there are also nature variations in a persons performance in time and this may lead to small changes in the ratings graph or big fluctuations in a relatively short period of time. It is hard to differentiate between legitimate fluctuations and changes due to engine use. Engine use will always be a problem with online chess. Despite being flogged by cheats sometimes, it is still valid practice for OTB games.
Sorry if I wasn't clear on my question, I was wondering if there was a simple arithmetic computation to figure an estimated rating (back in the day the USCF rating went... something like 16 pts to the winner {of equally rated players} & add 4 pts at each 100 point differance. So taking two 1000 players .... the winner gains 16pts, and say a1000 wins vs 1100 then + 20 etc.) I suspect the formula here might take an Archimedes or Einstein to figure out & scoring is best left to machines (like in bowling allies LOL) I do appreciate the input however. I don't lose sleep over facing software users, just see it as pointless and by playing only casual I'm hoping they'll skip me and go after those beloved rating points, or whatever they're after. Maybe showing my niavete' ?
Rating:
github.com/ornicar/lila/tree/master/modules/rating/src/mainHaven't looked at it in detail, but pretty sure the Rating deviation is as much as you can win in a single game, so beating someone with equal rating should give you half as much.
As for engine users in rated, why would there be so many of them? How many here have ever considered using an engine? I guess noone, so why should there be so many people out there?
Aside from that, if someone seriously used an engine he would be rated >2500 for sure so at your rating you are pretty "safe".
Sure, playing casual is not wrong, but played rated shows you how good you really are, and then you can pick opponents appropriately.
EDIT: Spelling