@Italiya said in #30:
> Do you think an instant jump from 1230 to 2000-2100 is normal?
Who is talking about *instant jump*? Not me, definitely. In practice, a rapid improvement is not so rare among young players. Also, the old rating might have been already severely underrated for some time, the Elo rating system catches up really slowly.
> This isn't an "outdated rating"; it's just that he was resting while everyone else was working hard.
If the rating no longer reflects current player's strength, it *is* outdated. And likely the problem was that he *was* working hard - only didn't play so many rated games. Which may not have anything to do with laziness, classical tournaments are notoriously difficult to schedule once you have study, work or family. (Just take a look at the starting list of a typical classical open and check how many players are in the 15-50 age interval.)
> Well, if we go back to online chess and apply this situation here, you can imagine how quickly someone could go from 1200 to 1900 if they're playing at 2100. If that's really the case. It's literally a matter of one or two attempts.
That's only true thanks to the properties of Glicko-2 and the way it is used on Lichess. With traditional Elo system, it can be pretty slow. Our national rating uses K=25 for players under 18 and K=15 for the rest. Therefore even a teenager cannot possibly gain more than 25 for a game. In practice, you are mostly paired with players of similar rating so that's rather K/2 for a win. Also, that's assuming you win every single game which is rarely the case.
I have encountered a similar problem myself, even if not nearly on such scale. My initial rating on 2024-10-01, calculated from my first classical tournaments, was 1326. I played through the next 8 months with overall rating performance around 1600, played most rounds in two regional team leagues (which means spending most Sundays from the morning to early afternoon with chess), played a 9-round classical open; this is quite a busy schedule that not nearly anoyone can afford. And yet, my rating after those 8 months (two rating periods) was still only 1420. The only reason it's 1585 now is the exception in the (national) rating regulations that when you play at least 27 games in one rating period, your new rating is not calculated as an update but the same way as the initial one (i.e. rating performance over the period). I did hit that exception by playing three tournaments through the Summer plus one club competition (which ended shortly after June 1st). If it weren't for that exception, even such extremely busy schedule would only get me to 1492.
> It's like cheating to get to 3000 because I feel like I'm playing for it, I just don't want to waste time. I have to prove everything by going through the stages.
> Giving him even 2000 right away is simply wrong, because he'll have to work hard to achieve that rating. Just because he can get it doesn't mean he should be given it.
Here you are missing another very important point. Being underrated is no reason to be frustrated; actually it's way more frustrating for your opponents. In that last season I'm pretty sure there were games which I only won because my opponents didn't want to draw against someone rated ~300 points lower, pushed too hard and made mistakes. Losing to someone rated significantly lower who is actually stronger than you is a hit to your rating which takes some time to compensate for once your rating is appropriate. When I was underrated, I didn't feel sorry for myself; I rather felt sorry for my opponents. And I still do in rapid where both my national and FIDE rating is likely quite a bit below my actual strength.
More importantly, what you seem to be missing (like many others here) is that the rating system is *not* a reward and punishment system. It's purpose is not to reward hard work, whatever you consider hard work. (Studying without playing *is* hard work; just playing lots of games without much study not so much.) The actual purpose of the rating system is to estimate player's strength, mostly for the purpose of pairing. If someone has not played for a longer time and their actual strength is significantly higher (or lower) than their outdated rating, it's highly desirable to make their rating catch up as quickly as possible. Not for them but for the good function of the system and, of course, also for their opponents.
> If you, with a rating of 2700, solve three problems correctly and get a rating of around 3000, would you consider that rating deserved?
That's why we have rating deviation and the notion of unstable/provisional rating to give us a hint how seriously to take it.
> After all, solving one or three problems correctly isn't particularly difficult
How many 2600+ lichess puzzles have you tried? Big part of the reason why I haven't been solving any for quite some time is that those puzzles almost always take some time (rarely below 10 minutes at this level) and when I have enough time for them, I usually have better use for it.
@mkubecek said in #31:
> > Do you think an instant jump from 1230 to 2000-2100 is normal?
>
> Who is talking about *instant jump*? Not me, definitely. In practice, a rapid improvement is not so rare among young players. Also, the old rating might have been already severely underrated for some time, the Elo rating system catches up really slowly.
>
> > This isn't an "outdated rating"; it's just that he was resting while everyone else was working hard.
>
> If the rating no longer reflects current player's strength, it *is* outdated. And likely the problem was that he *was* working hard - only didn't play so many rated games. Which may not have anything to do with laziness, classical tournaments are notoriously difficult to schedule once you have study, work or family. (Just take a look at the starting list of a typical classical open and check how many players are in the 15-50 age interval.)
>
> > Well, if we go back to online chess and apply this situation here, you can imagine how quickly someone could go from 1200 to 1900 if they're playing at 2100. If that's really the case. It's literally a matter of one or two attempts.
>
> That's only true thanks to the properties of Glicko-2 and the way it is used on Lichess. With traditional Elo system, it can be pretty slow. Our national rating uses K=25 for players under 18 and K=15 for the rest. Therefore even a teenager cannot possibly gain more than 25 for a game. In practice, you are mostly paired with players of similar rating so that's rather K/2 for a win. Also, that's assuming you win every single game which is rarely the case.
>
> I have encountered a similar problem myself, even if not nearly on such scale. My initial rating on 2024-10-01, calculated from my first classical tournaments, was 1326. I played through the next 8 months with overall rating performance around 1600, played most rounds in two regional team leagues (which means spending most Sundays from the morning to early afternoon with chess), played a 9-round classical open; this is quite a busy schedule that not nearly anoyone can afford. And yet, my rating after those 8 months (two rating periods) was still only 1420. The only reason it's 1585 now is the exception in the (national) rating regulations that when you play at least 27 games in one rating period, your new rating is not calculated as an update but the same way as the initial one (i.e. rating performance over the period). I did hit that exception by playing three tournaments through the Summer plus one club competition (which ended shortly after June 1st). If it weren't for that exception, even such extremely busy schedule would only get me to 1492.
>
> > It's like cheating to get to 3000 because I feel like I'm playing for it, I just don't want to waste time. I have to prove everything by going through the stages.
> > Giving him even 2000 right away is simply wrong, because he'll have to work hard to achieve that rating. Just because he can get it doesn't mean he should be given it.
>
> Here you are missing another very important point. Being underrated is no reason to be frustrated; actually it's way more frustrating for your opponents. In that last season I'm pretty sure there were games which I only won because my opponents didn't want to draw against someone rated ~300 points lower, pushed too hard and made mistakes. Losing to someone rated significantly lower who is actually stronger than you is a hit to your rating which takes some time to compensate for once your rating is appropriate. When I was underrated, I didn't feel sorry for myself; I rather felt sorry for my opponents. And I still do in rapid where both my national and FIDE rating is likely quite a bit below my actual strength.
>
> More importantly, what you seem to be missing (like many others here) is that the rating system is *not* a reward and punishment system. It's purpose is not to reward hard work, whatever you consider hard work. (Studying without playing *is* hard work; just playing lots of games without much study not so much.) The actual purpose of the rating system is to estimate player's strength, mostly for the purpose of pairing. If someone has not played for a longer time and their actual strength is significantly higher (or lower) than their outdated rating, it's highly desirable to make their rating catch up as quickly as possible. Not for them but for the good function of the system and, of course, also for their opponents.
>
> > If you, with a rating of 2700, solve three problems correctly and get a rating of around 3000, would you consider that rating deserved?
>
> That's why we have rating deviation and the notion of unstable/provisional rating to give us a hint how seriously to take it.
>
> > After all, solving one or three problems correctly isn't particularly difficult
>
> How many 2600+ lichess puzzles have you tried? Big part of the reason why I haven't been solving any for quite some time is that those puzzles almost always take some time (rarely below 10 minutes at this level) and when I have enough time for them, I usually have better use for it.
You can work hard to reach the level of world champion, but you won't immediately qualify for a match for the chess crown. You'll have to fulfill a number of conditions and follow a specific path.
Again, it's no one's business if someone didn't have time for tournaments.
<That's only true thanks to the properties of Glicko-2 and the way it's used on Lichess.>
No, I mean that reaching 1900 will be a cakewalk if your potential is 2100. In online chess, you don't need to plan or allocate time. You can play simply on your way to school or work, and at any convenient time.
You keep talking about your personal time constraints, but if you're using professional sports as an example, it's the same. People there are forced to spend a lot of time on it.
Of course, the rating is a measure of playing strength. I don't understand how the absence of a question mark could worsen the system? The player will move forward or backward, not getting stuck at one level for long if it's already inappropriate. However, there are many nuances associated with these sudden jumps. For example, as I already described, if someone decides to play on Berserker mode or is simply in a bad mood and loses 15 games in a row, their rating will be fixed at an inappropriately low level. This question mark is not only unnecessary, but also a deterrent to using some of the site's features. Or they could simply win 15 times. Such streaks aren't common, but they're also not uncommon.
It's absolutely certain that you can reach level 2600 in the puzzles, since that's your fixed level. But try solving just one puzzle correctly on the medium difficulty level—you can do it, that's a fact. You'll immediately increase your record to 2800. Then switch to the easiest mode so you don't lose too much if you lose, and most importantly, so you're given puzzles that have a very low chance of making a mistake. Once the question mark is removed, you might be able to maintain 2800. Then, deliberately lose to your original 2700 and try to reach 2800 the normal way. I don't argue that you can do it, but how much time and effort will it take?
And if you're stingy with the time and effort, that doesn't mean you should give up all those results you might never have achieved. But that's how sports work—results are hard-won.
This question mark only confuses and creates conditions for manipulation. It serves no purpose. And if you're worried about someone having to beat a bunch of clearly inferior players on their way to reaching their real stats, then you definitely shouldn't do it on a site that allows at least three accounts. Where you'll be playing with 1500 starting points for each account. And, roughly speaking, you'll beat the same player three times, even with a lower rating.
OK, I tried to explain to you how things work and why. Apparently I failed, I'm giving up.
@mkubecek said in #33:
> OK, I tried to explain to you how things work and why. Apparently I failed, I'm giving up.
Because you explained it from the perspective of someone who doesn't want to spend a lot of time and effort on chess. However, I'll note another amusing point (from a series of three accounts): this site emphasizes extremely long tournaments.
@Italiya said in #34:
> Because you explained it from the perspective of someone who doesn't want to spend a lot of time and effort on chess.
Or you just refuse to accept that "*spending a lot of time and effort on chess*" and "*playing a lot of (rated) games*" are two very different things which are only loosely related.
And that's exactly the problem with this whole "discussion": you keep writing the same stuff round and round and either reject or simply ignore everything others try to tell you.
@mkubecek said in #31:
> More importantly, what you seem to be missing (like many others here) is that the rating system is not a reward and punishment system.
Completely agree. I explained exactly the same thing to him. I don't think that there are many others that think that rating is a punishment/reward system. I see only one user who defends this position — Italiya.
The whole problem is that Italiya likes to do 2 steps instead of 1 step to reach the goal. When we discussed other topics with him he did the same thing. This is faulty logic that is based on an assumption that the more steps you take the more "weight" your path will get. Also this approach completely ignores the functionality of the final goal. It's like running a lap before taking a spoon to eat the soup and then argue that because you ran a lap before you took a spoon you somehow deserve the spoon more and everyone needs to do it too otherwise it's cheating.
@mkubecek said in #33:
> OK, I tried to explain to you how things work and why. Apparently I failed, I'm giving up.
Dude, I spend whole month (https://lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/the-annual-arenas-are-held-twice-a-year-but-not-all?page=23#226) trying to explain him where his logic is broken. He literally tried to prove that Lichess is intentionally mislead (deceives) users. I even use logic formulas to show where exactly his mistakes were and he just said "If I do not get personal and do not use inappropriate mathematical formulas, this does not mean that I am giving in to you in any way." completely ignoring any argumentation and did't explain where exactly formulas were wrong and just started to repeat himself, not wanting to admit his mistakes, lmao.
That's why I now reply to his posts so that other users doesn't waste their time (I don't mind waste my spare time if I follow constructive approach, this is like logic training for me).
@mkubecek said in #35:
> > Because you explained it from the perspective of someone who doesn't want to spend a lot of time and effort on chess.
>
> Or you just refuse to accept that "*spending a lot of time and effort on chess*" and "*playing a lot of (rated) games*" are two very different things which are only loosely related.
>
> And that's exactly the problem with this whole "discussion": you keep writing the same stuff round and round and either reject or simply ignore everything others try to tell you.
There's no problem here. You can't score 895 goals at once, even if you're the best hockey player; you'll have to score one at a time.
@Italiya said in #37:
> You can't score 895 goals at once, even if you're the best hockey player; you'll have to score one at a time.
...and this nicely illustrates the core issue: you not understanding (or deliberately ignoring?) the fundamental difference between cummulative statistics like total goal count on one side and chess rating on the other.
@mkubecek said in #38:
> > You can't score 895 goals at once, even if you're the best hockey player; you'll have to score one at a time.
>
> ...and this nicely illustrates the core issue: you not understanding (or deliberately ignoring?) the fundamental difference between cummulative statistics like total goal count on one side and chess rating on the other.
I've given you examples of how this can contribute to under- or over-rating, both in puzzles and games. Your argument is that if you level up naturally, it will take longer. How much longer, a month, a week? It might take a little longer, but at least it eliminates chance and manipulation.
@Italiya said in #39:
> How much more, a month, a week?
Depends on the system. But with a system that would have no dynamic reliability evaluation and would provide reasonably stable ratings for established players it could easily be 50-100 games. That's 50-100 mismatched opponents, frustrated by having to play a severely misrated opponent and those games fully affecting their rating. With Glicko-2, it's way fewer games and also playing an opponent with unstable rating affects one's rating less than the same result against an opponent with the same rating but stable.
> It might take a little longer, but at least it eliminates chance and manipulation.
Correction: it would take significantly longer, it would not eliminate manipulation and instead of *chance* of temporarily having inappropriate rating it would *make sure* the rating would stay inappropriate for longer.