IDK how to phrase this but I think lichess should use a different rating than Glicko-2 a 1500 player can either be a Class B player (fide) Or a class A for example a 2000 rated player could be a Class A player A CM or play like they are slightly new to chess.Ratings to skill levels are very incosistent on lichess Who agrees?
<Comment deleted by user>
I disagree completely there is no direct proportion so lichess to fide are very hard to estimate
Im not saying Glicko 2 is bad it's just completely different to the elo system
Or perhaps FIDE should change to Glicko 2 :). This page makes some good points about why Glicko is used ... lichess.org/page/rating-systems. Yes you can't directly compare FIDE ratings and lichess as they are A) Different pool of players and B) use different systems. Also, Glicko 2 most accurately predicts the outcome of games which is the whole point of a rating system.
Actually, Elo and Glicko-2 are very similar in their meaning. A certain rating difference means a certain expectation value for the game result. A difference of 100 points means the higher rated is expected to win 0.64 points in a game, the lower one 0.36.
Absolute numbers have basically no meaning, neither in Elo nor in Glicko-2. Any meaning of we assign to a pure number is a result of a comparison with players whose numbers and strengths we know.
Absolute numbers have basically no meaning, neither in Elo nor in Glicko-2. Any meaning of we assign to a pure number is a result of a comparison with players whose numbers and strengths we know.
Like most things in life once you understand them, they cease to appear strange. @sheckley666 words which are 100% accurate is a good start to understanding.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.