I'm quite certain my last ? opponent cheated. That's why I usually avoid them, unless they have hundreds and preferably thousands of games played in other timecontrols. They can also just be good players but be much higher rated in their other accounts, which would lead to me losing rating points. This week I received my first timeout due to aborting just a few games. That's why I accepted my last ? opponent. Aborting question mark players shouldn't be a crime.
Hello, this is intended. Otherwise new players wouldn’t be able to get a stable rating if nobody wanted to play them.
@Solal35 said in #2:
> Hello, this is intended. Otherwise new players wouldn’t be able to get a stable rating if nobody wanted to play them.
A new player at 2000+ rating just created another account. Some for fun and some because they got banned. And the problem mainly exists in the rapid and classical timecontrol.
> Hello, this is intended. Otherwise new players wouldn’t be able to get a stable rating if nobody wanted to play them.
A new player at 2000+ rating just created another account. Some for fun and some because they got banned. And the problem mainly exists in the rapid and classical timecontrol.
@wannabe2700 May I ask you, how strong you were, when you created your first account on lichess?
@sheckley666 said in #4:
> @wannabe2700 May I ask you, how strong you were, when you created your first account on lichess?
I created it 6 years ago, when I first heard of lichess. Something that every strong player has heard of by now, but back then wasn't as popular yet. There's also a title next to my name, which offers some proof. Most accounts are completely anonymous and last just a month, which makes cheating super easy.
> @wannabe2700 May I ask you, how strong you were, when you created your first account on lichess?
I created it 6 years ago, when I first heard of lichess. Something that every strong player has heard of by now, but back then wasn't as popular yet. There's also a title next to my name, which offers some proof. Most accounts are completely anonymous and last just a month, which makes cheating super easy.
May I also add no matter how I decide to treat ? players doesn't mean everyone else will do the same. Someone will play them, but I don't want to and it feels stupid to force me to.
I mean, I understand you well. It's a mental disadvantage to play and not know their strength. Essentially the threat can be stronger then the execution. In theory this is solved by having both more "open" and "closed (ie. titled arena) " events. Most event's do kinda need to be open through, otherwise it's a bad experience for new players to join Lichess. The active players sometimes self-organize to impose their own stricter limit ( ie. www.lichess4545.com/ ) , which is a perfectly valid option.
What usually makes it tricky is however the very top of the percentile players. You both want a) play players with many games and b) play players that are close in strength. But ie. in classical (where I am top 150 atm), there is not many active players at 2400 fide. It's probably a few more strong players in rapid? But not sure about the pool and even less so with off-beat tc of 8 min. Anyway, I suspect the fear of new/unknown accounts is part of why many top players tend towards blitz and bullet. With faster and more games, it's less time to play an unknown so somehow it's "less bad/ over quicker"
Basically my suggestion is to invite the players you want to play with to make or join event's that fit the "played games" requirement you are looking for.
What usually makes it tricky is however the very top of the percentile players. You both want a) play players with many games and b) play players that are close in strength. But ie. in classical (where I am top 150 atm), there is not many active players at 2400 fide. It's probably a few more strong players in rapid? But not sure about the pool and even less so with off-beat tc of 8 min. Anyway, I suspect the fear of new/unknown accounts is part of why many top players tend towards blitz and bullet. With faster and more games, it's less time to play an unknown so somehow it's "less bad/ over quicker"
Basically my suggestion is to invite the players you want to play with to make or join event's that fit the "played games" requirement you are looking for.
@TBest said in #7:
> It's a mental disadvantage to play and not know their strength.
Matter of one's point of view. For me, it's an advantage to play the opponent without prejudice and it was in fact the main reason why I enabled the zen mode.
> It's a mental disadvantage to play and not know their strength.
Matter of one's point of view. For me, it's an advantage to play the opponent without prejudice and it was in fact the main reason why I enabled the zen mode.
Manual challenge to online players from top200 rated rapid and classical lists works fine.
@wannabe2700 said in #5:
> There's also a title next to my name, which offers some proof.
Titled players have the explicit right to an anonymous alt-account. How should these accounts get a reliable rating?
> There's also a title next to my name, which offers some proof.
Titled players have the explicit right to an anonymous alt-account. How should these accounts get a reliable rating?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.