Correspondence rating

I hardly think it's just a question of energy: I'm not a developer or programmer, but adding a table on a page is rather simple.

Lichess is a fantastic website, and I can easily find players for correspondence chess… I'm not gonna go somewhere else :)

you can easily find players, but many are rated a couple hundred points below you, a few are around your level, and the rest are more than a couple hundred below you. there's not that many over 2100 players, at least that you play, or that i see when i'm in the 'lobby'........ and a lot of the players are provisional........... i'm just pointing out the numbers, glad you like lichess, though. it's got a nice interface and is an interesting site.

Correspondence games on this site are unfortunately treated at the bottom of the food chain, compared to the rest of the site.

@pionGris, I spent the past summer playing correspondence games on this site and I totally agree with you. It is an absurdity to not be allowed to know my percentile ranking, simply because there might be cheaters lurking somewhere. The site already has robust cheat detection, so I don't see how preemptively nullifying ALL correspondence games as 'probably cheaters' is of any value. This attitude is spoiling what would otherwise be a compelling game mode. You can see on my profile a few other posts about correspondence and notice via the total lack of feedback or regard.

Very sad and ironic to have the truly idiotic bullet clowns be gifted a percentile, while the thoughtful correspondence players are denied any such validation for their tireless contemplations. Why even have a correspondence rating at all? What is the incentive to play?

@hungarydog couldn't agree more........ imho, lichess simply can't be bothered to include CC percentile rankings......the cheating stuff is just an excuse. but.... bullet clowns??? thoughtful correspondence players???

:) @doublebanzai I'm just contrasting the absurdity of a hyperbullet player furiously making all those meaningless moves as a fast as he can and being gifted The Dignity of a ranking; meanwhile the scholarly correspondence player, deep in considerate thought, is deemed so worthless he does not even deserve a ranking!

@hungarydog agreed.... i just find it humorous that you picture bullet guys and correspondence guys so differently. actually, sometimes when i play blitz (i don't even understand bullet) and my time is running out i just, inexplicably to blitz players, decide it's over and i let the few seconds run out... i kind of don't care to race a clock in that way...

there should be a percentile ranking for correspondence.... the potential for cheating thing is........just an excuse....

@hungarydog Those moves aren't meaningless, there is a correlation between a player strength and the strength of the intuitive move he can make (obviously ...).
And one could even argue that there is more talent required in hyper because you have to actually know deeply and instinctively how to apply your chess knowledge; even if the time limitation only let you apply a subset of that knowledge.

And also you seem to put thought on a pedestal, chess is a game and as all game having fun should be the first goal, now you can have fun thinking deeply for hours but the majority of people derivate fun by the adrenaline rush induced by the "stress" aspect of time management. As a proof jsut look at the gaming industry : the most popular genre of video-games always has been action, sport or adventure, strategy well behind. Now can you blame a website for privileging the many?

I get your point though, all types of player should be able to enjoy lichess fully.

Thank you for your comment, @hungarydog, you expressed what I was trying to say but 10 times better than me!

And of course, I don't despise any other chess variant. I'm OK with bullet – I'm absolutely terrible at it, but it's fun! It's just that I don't understand why my favorite variant is not treated equally as the other…