@thibault just in my opinion needs to twerk the rating range a little bit or to possibly make the range not effective in casual games.
Please change this rating range at the earliest!! This is really annoying!!
The only rational reason I can think of has to do with the new popularity of chess. The changes make it 'friendlier' to new players who just want chess to be a game like any other they play on their phone or watch on twitch. The culture of chess for centuries has essentially been the culture of autists which is perceived by neurotypicals as elitist (although it is no such thing). To these new players it is absurd to aim to 'get better' at chess with hundreds of hrs of chess. They are probably right but for the chess community this has been our shared absurdity.
The ratings range change essentially segregates the old chess community from the new one. They will never see us and we will never see them. The other day youtube recommended me a video that was 2 titled players watching 4 absurdly low rated players playing. Something like 400-600 rated. I honestly had no idea ratings went that low. I swear my very first game must have been 800-1000 at least and I think most players who started playing in the before-fore were similar. But now people who would never had played chess are now playing chess. But they are playing because it is a fad and they don't like how hard it is. They want chess to be easier and more fun. When for us chess is fun BECAUSE it is hard.
We are playing the same game but we are not playing the same game.
No one is right here. We are all just a bunch of apes. BUT, nothing is ever gained from segregating. We should at least be able to PLAY each other if we want. By all means cap for rated games but casual chess should be like setting a board up in a park and playing ANYONE or shouting out a specific challenge to any skill level.
The ratings range change essentially segregates the old chess community from the new one. They will never see us and we will never see them. The other day youtube recommended me a video that was 2 titled players watching 4 absurdly low rated players playing. Something like 400-600 rated. I honestly had no idea ratings went that low. I swear my very first game must have been 800-1000 at least and I think most players who started playing in the before-fore were similar. But now people who would never had played chess are now playing chess. But they are playing because it is a fad and they don't like how hard it is. They want chess to be easier and more fun. When for us chess is fun BECAUSE it is hard.
We are playing the same game but we are not playing the same game.
No one is right here. We are all just a bunch of apes. BUT, nothing is ever gained from segregating. We should at least be able to PLAY each other if we want. By all means cap for rated games but casual chess should be like setting a board up in a park and playing ANYONE or shouting out a specific challenge to any skill level.
@NaturalBornTraveller , @RickRenegade Possibility of setting a custom challenge does not make it trivial or even realistic to boost your rating artificially, as long as the rating system is mathematically sound (and Glicko2 used by Lichess is generally presumed to be). When you play someone 800 points below you, you get a fraction of the rating point for winning such a game, and one bad misclick in 30-50 games is fairly enough to bring you back to zero gain or even heavy minus.
@MercuryTrismegistus You offered an interesting, but deeply philosophical point of view.
#AbC
@MercuryTrismegistus You offered an interesting, but deeply philosophical point of view.
#AbC
Someone mentioned lichess.org/forum/redirect/post/wD6wzTIl , but I don't see any explanation there, despite the opportunity.
Anyway, I think this the first time lichess has made a change that really negatively impacts my enjoyment of the site. I don't really care about players more than 500 points above me not being able to play me, because that rarely happens anyway. But I should be able to seek games with only higher-rated opponents. I often do, because I like to try and push myself a little. And I never have problems getting games.
Maybe there's a valid reason for the change (although I certainly can't think of one for casual play), but why do we get no explanation? There's nothing on the blog as far as I can see. Why? What's the point in having a blog if you don't communicate about things like this?
Anyway, I think this the first time lichess has made a change that really negatively impacts my enjoyment of the site. I don't really care about players more than 500 points above me not being able to play me, because that rarely happens anyway. But I should be able to seek games with only higher-rated opponents. I often do, because I like to try and push myself a little. And I never have problems getting games.
Maybe there's a valid reason for the change (although I certainly can't think of one for casual play), but why do we get no explanation? There's nothing on the blog as far as I can see. Why? What's the point in having a blog if you don't communicate about things like this?
I'm going to just point out the double speak here. In many threads and not this one.
Most people don't want to play people 500 points below them.
A lot of people want to play people 500 points above them.
People want to have their cake and eat it too.
There is no reason to have a different UI design for casual vs rated.
How are you having issues matching with people with the current design? What variants are you having issues with? Concrete examples change things.
Most people don't want to play people 500 points below them.
A lot of people want to play people 500 points above them.
People want to have their cake and eat it too.
There is no reason to have a different UI design for casual vs rated.
How are you having issues matching with people with the current design? What variants are you having issues with? Concrete examples change things.
I think we've had some concrete examples. The one that most concerns me is if I only want to play players 100 points above me, why am I prevented just because of this UI decision?
And yes, if everyone thought the same way, nobody would get games... except that
1) Not everyone thinks the same way. I never have problems getting games.
2) If people can't get games, surely they'll quickly widen their search criteria anyway?
And yes, if everyone thought the same way, nobody would get games... except that
1) Not everyone thinks the same way. I never have problems getting games.
2) If people can't get games, surely they'll quickly widen their search criteria anyway?
That's not a concrete issue. That is an issue of you wanting to only play people 100+ rating higher. That is a preference issue. You even point out that if everyone did the same, no one would have games, which is enough an argument to make it not possible.
A concrete issue is people complaining they have issues pairing normally now in casual games. Where the gap is too small. Waiting too long?
A concrete issue is people complaining they have issues pairing normally now in casual games. Where the gap is too small. Waiting too long?
Variants are a good example. It can take quite a while to get paired up in three check as it isn't very popular. In the last week 5,156 have played a rated game. If higher rated players have a restriction on who will receive their challenges they would then need to wait even longer to get paired up as a result. I'd argue the previous system worked fine before anyway. No UI redesign was needed in the first place. If you're going to copy from chess.com, how about something that is actually good about it? Puzzles rush for example.
I don't see anything wrong with having cake and eating it. What else would you propose people do with it?
I don't see anything wrong with having cake and eating it. What else would you propose people do with it?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.