- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

please chage scoring system ..... is terrible

#21

@mcgoves said in #20:

I don't understand. Why do people need to win 100 games? Is there a contest?
Look answer of magnuscornbread and you undetund

@mcgoves said in #20: > I don't understand. Why do people need to win 100 games? Is there a contest? Look answer of magnuscornbread and you undetund
#22

@kinsana said in #19:

Arf ... You can't take criticism and you lecture everyone ... ROFL

Jesus dude, you're making yourself look like an actual clown. Just drop it and stop embarrassing yourself, please.

@kinsana said in #19: > Arf ... You can't take criticism and you lecture everyone ... ROFL Jesus dude, you're making yourself look like an actual clown. Just drop it and stop embarrassing yourself, please.
#23

@faustfa You are playing for rating rather than to improve at chess. Study more and your rating will improve.

@faustfa You are playing for rating rather than to improve at chess. Study more and your rating will improve.
#24

"This account violated the Lichess Terms of Service"

oops...

"This account violated the Lichess Terms of Service" oops...
#25

@faustfa said in #21:

Look answer of magnuscornbread and you undetund

If you read as carefully as you spell, I'm probably wasting my time. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go. Hopefully, @magnuscornbread will undetund as well.

You're both missing the point of what a rating is. It is NOT a count of the points you accumulate by playing a lot. That would be a score. Most video games have a score of some kind, but not chess (at least, not here). A rating is simply an estimate of your strength. You gain points slowly because the system already has a pretty good idea of what your strength is, and you haven't demonstrated skill to the contrary.

When #11 says "your rating deviation is low", they are talking about the statistic that estimates how good your rating already is. Conversely, when your "opponent got -28", that sugests the algorithm doesn't have a great idea of how strong the opponent is, and is refining the estimate. As you play more games, the RD goes down, and so do the adjustments.

But of course, #5 already explained that.

If you are actually stronger than your rating indicates, you will win more matches than the system expects, and the algorithm will realize it needs to make larger adjustments. So your RD will grow, and you will gain more points on each victory. So if you win all your games (and elude the cheat detector), it will not take anything like 100 games to climb to 2K.

@faustfa said in #21: > Look answer of magnuscornbread and you undetund If you read as carefully as you spell, I'm probably wasting my time. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go. Hopefully, @magnuscornbread will undetund as well. You're both missing the point of what a rating is. It is NOT a count of the points you accumulate by playing a lot. That would be a score. Most video games have a score of some kind, but not chess (at least, not here). A rating is simply an estimate of your strength. You gain points slowly because the system already has a pretty good idea of what your strength is, and you haven't demonstrated skill to the contrary. When #11 says "your rating deviation is low", they are talking about the statistic that estimates how good your rating already is. Conversely, when your "opponent got -28", that sugests the algorithm doesn't have a great idea of how strong the opponent is, and is refining the estimate. As you play more games, the RD goes down, and so do the adjustments. But of course, #5 already explained that. If you are actually stronger than your rating indicates, you will win more matches than the system expects, and the algorithm will realize it needs to make larger adjustments. So your RD will grow, and you will gain more points on each victory. So if you win all your games (and elude the cheat detector), it will not take anything like 100 games to climb to 2K.
#26

@mcgoves said in #25:

If you read as carefully as you spell, I'm probably wasting my time. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go. Hopefully, @magnuscornbread will undetund as well.

You're both missing the point of what a rating is. It is NOT a count of the points you accumulate by playing a lot. That would be a score. Most video games have a score of some kind, but not chess (at least, not here). A rating is simply an estimate of your strength. You gain points slowly because the system already has a pretty good idea of what your strength is, and you haven't demonstrated skill to the contrary.

When #11 says "your rating deviation is low", they are talking about the statistic that estimates how good your rating already is. Conversely, when your "opponent got -28", that sugests the algorithm doesn't have a great idea of how strong the opponent is, and is refining the estimate. As you play more games, the RD goes down, and so do the adjustments.

But of course, #5 already explained that.

If you are actually stronger than your rating indicates, you will win more matches than the system expects, and the algorithm will realize it needs to make larger adjustments. So your RD will grow, and you will gain more points on each victory. So if you win all your games (and elude the cheat detector), it will not take anything like 100 games to climb to 2K.

we understood that one is a score and one is an evaluation but it performs the same function as the score so it's the same thing just calculated in a different way, turn it around as you like, if when you lose you lose more than when you win at my house the game is unfair then I say it's okay for people to use stockfish but in doing so it eventually becomes a cage of chaters, which isn't that far from reality

@mcgoves said in #25: > If you read as carefully as you spell, I'm probably wasting my time. Nevertheless, I'll give it a go. Hopefully, @magnuscornbread will undetund as well. > > You're both missing the point of what a rating is. It is NOT a count of the points you accumulate by playing a lot. That would be a score. Most video games have a score of some kind, but not chess (at least, not here). A rating is simply an estimate of your strength. You gain points slowly because the system already has a pretty good idea of what your strength is, and you haven't demonstrated skill to the contrary. > > When #11 says "your rating deviation is low", they are talking about the statistic that estimates how good your rating already is. Conversely, when your "opponent got -28", that sugests the algorithm doesn't have a great idea of how strong the opponent is, and is refining the estimate. As you play more games, the RD goes down, and so do the adjustments. > > But of course, #5 already explained that. > > If you are actually stronger than your rating indicates, you will win more matches than the system expects, and the algorithm will realize it needs to make larger adjustments. So your RD will grow, and you will gain more points on each victory. So if you win all your games (and elude the cheat detector), it will not take anything like 100 games to climb to 2K. we understood that one is a score and one is an evaluation but it performs the same function as the score so it's the same thing just calculated in a different way, turn it around as you like, if when you lose you lose more than when you win at my house the game is unfair then I say it's okay for people to use stockfish but in doing so it eventually becomes a cage of chaters, which isn't that far from reality
#27

@borninthesixties said in #24:

"This account violated the Lichess Terms of Service"

oops...
who ??

@borninthesixties said in #24: > "This account violated the Lichess Terms of Service" > > oops... who ??
#29

@faustfa said in #26:

a cage of chaters

Is this like a basket of deplorables?

@faustfa said in #26: > a cage of chaters Is this like a basket of deplorables?
#30

@faustfa said in #26:

if when you lose you lose more than when you win at my house the game is unfair

You only think it's unfair because you still think that "it performs the same function as the score".

@faustfa said in #26: > if when you lose you lose more than when you win at my house the game is unfair You only think it's unfair because you still think that "it performs the same function as the score".

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