Oh ?! so chess openings need to be sorted by time controls, the depth need to create an opening in a given time, and the possibility of it being memorised by a rated level.
If a rating is just valid in a particular pool, then the openings used in there pools should be kept separate too.
We might discover that some openings win less in bullets than in classical or vise versa.
If the skill of the players is not reflected by the highest of their rating, what does reflect it... Quantity or quality of games in that time control. Seems to me that the experience of playing chess affects all time controls.
If a rating is just valid in a particular pool, then the openings used in there pools should be kept separate too.
We might discover that some openings win less in bullets than in classical or vise versa.
If the skill of the players is not reflected by the highest of their rating, what does reflect it... Quantity or quality of games in that time control. Seems to me that the experience of playing chess affects all time controls.
@Toscani said in #12:
> Oh ?! so chess openings need to be sorted by time controls, depth need to create such an opening and the possibility of it being memorised by rating skill level.
>
> If a rating is just valid in a particular pool, then the openings used in there pools should be kept separate too.
> We might discover that some openings win less in bullets than in classical or vise versa.
correct. I've seen many streaming GMs say things like this is a dubious opening, I'd only use it in bullet or blitz.
> If the skill of the players is not reflected by the highest of their rating, what does reflect it... Quantity or quality of games in that time control. Seems to me that the experience of playing chess affects all time controls.
I agree with the experience part. but I also believe each time control is different.
the two extremes, bullet and classical, have some things in common, but enough differences that it's possible to be better in one or the other time control.
> Oh ?! so chess openings need to be sorted by time controls, depth need to create such an opening and the possibility of it being memorised by rating skill level.
>
> If a rating is just valid in a particular pool, then the openings used in there pools should be kept separate too.
> We might discover that some openings win less in bullets than in classical or vise versa.
correct. I've seen many streaming GMs say things like this is a dubious opening, I'd only use it in bullet or blitz.
> If the skill of the players is not reflected by the highest of their rating, what does reflect it... Quantity or quality of games in that time control. Seems to me that the experience of playing chess affects all time controls.
I agree with the experience part. but I also believe each time control is different.
the two extremes, bullet and classical, have some things in common, but enough differences that it's possible to be better in one or the other time control.
@Toscani said in #1:
> Should there not be some sort of high rating indicator for a player no matter the time control ?
Bring the cursor to the nickname, a window appears in which you can see the player’s rating in all chess options. If I understand you correctly, you want another line in this window - with ratings in solving puzzles and tactical sturm?
Try to offer in the section Lichess Feedback.
> Should there not be some sort of high rating indicator for a player no matter the time control ?
Bring the cursor to the nickname, a window appears in which you can see the player’s rating in all chess options. If I understand you correctly, you want another line in this window - with ratings in solving puzzles and tactical sturm?
Try to offer in the section Lichess Feedback.
If only I had problems like this...
Forgive me but I really don't get this.
If my rating in correspondence is 1800 then thats my rating for that type of game. If its 800 for ultra bullet then thats my rating for that game.
If you choose to play me in ultrabullet you'll only have to beat an 800. So what use is it knowing my best rating is, say, 1800? You're not going to get an 1800 game in UB are you? Or in any other format. Is that really going to influence you in choosing an opponent?
My average rating would be 1300. But even thats irrelevant. Lets look at 'solving power'. In puzzles, you know there is a solution that has to be found. If you play 100s or 1000s of puzzles then your rating for that will be X. So even thats no indicator of a players playing strength as puzzles require time to solve them - often time not available unless you're playing long time controls - and even then, how many will you spot?
You can remove all this confusion by turning off ratings, going to the lobby and once having selected your rating range in the settings, just pick one of those players to play against.
Rocket science that has a use!
If my rating in correspondence is 1800 then thats my rating for that type of game. If its 800 for ultra bullet then thats my rating for that game.
If you choose to play me in ultrabullet you'll only have to beat an 800. So what use is it knowing my best rating is, say, 1800? You're not going to get an 1800 game in UB are you? Or in any other format. Is that really going to influence you in choosing an opponent?
My average rating would be 1300. But even thats irrelevant. Lets look at 'solving power'. In puzzles, you know there is a solution that has to be found. If you play 100s or 1000s of puzzles then your rating for that will be X. So even thats no indicator of a players playing strength as puzzles require time to solve them - often time not available unless you're playing long time controls - and even then, how many will you spot?
You can remove all this confusion by turning off ratings, going to the lobby and once having selected your rating range in the settings, just pick one of those players to play against.
Rocket science that has a use!
When I say I've won first place OTB in a 1700 tournament, it sure draws a picture of my skills at chess.
So even if I go play ultrabullet, my skill is still there. It's my hand that does not move fast enough. Nothing to do with the brain being slow. So I get a rating of 1000 which means 1700 OTB in slow time controls.
Hard to compare apples with oranges so there needs to be some logic to show a 1000 rated player in Ultrabullet is a 1700 OTB.
In my profile if you press "All" in the graph, you will see the lines fluctuating between 1000 and 2000.
Event accuracy percentage changes ...
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/accuracy/variant
I'm more lucky in faster time controls. Shows player don't look as much at what the opponents play.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/luck/variant
Tactical stability seens similar except ultrabullet...
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/awareness/variant
Is there some sort of median or comparison algorithm that can be created to give a skill percentage to a player?
Maybe the opponent rating from the chess insights, could be used to derive a skill level.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/opponentRating/variant
So even if I go play ultrabullet, my skill is still there. It's my hand that does not move fast enough. Nothing to do with the brain being slow. So I get a rating of 1000 which means 1700 OTB in slow time controls.
Hard to compare apples with oranges so there needs to be some logic to show a 1000 rated player in Ultrabullet is a 1700 OTB.
In my profile if you press "All" in the graph, you will see the lines fluctuating between 1000 and 2000.
Event accuracy percentage changes ...
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/accuracy/variant
I'm more lucky in faster time controls. Shows player don't look as much at what the opponents play.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/luck/variant
Tactical stability seens similar except ultrabullet...
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/awareness/variant
Is there some sort of median or comparison algorithm that can be created to give a skill percentage to a player?
Maybe the opponent rating from the chess insights, could be used to derive a skill level.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/opponentRating/variant
Slower time control ratings are representative of your skill at chess.
Take @BFischer94 as an example, his "skill" is not 2200 on a Lichess scale, he's just BLISTERINGLY fast
Take @BFischer94 as an example, his "skill" is not 2200 on a Lichess scale, he's just BLISTERINGLY fast
@Toscani said in #17:
> Hard to compare apples with oranges so there needs to be some logic to show a 1000 rated player in Ultrabullet is a 1700 OTB.
Hard to compare apples with oranges so there needs to be some logic comparing apples with oranges. What kind of logic is that?
Skills scale differently for different players anyway.
> Hard to compare apples with oranges so there needs to be some logic to show a 1000 rated player in Ultrabullet is a 1700 OTB.
Hard to compare apples with oranges so there needs to be some logic comparing apples with oranges. What kind of logic is that?
Skills scale differently for different players anyway.
Apples and oranges are fruits. Bullet and Classical is still Chess.
So the skill is still needed in any time control. We have just less time to think and play a move.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/movetime/variant
So the skill is still needed in any time control. We have just less time to think and play a move.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/movetime/variant
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.