I'm not talking about peak ratings, but a rating that is stable, no matter the time control.
Without naming names, I see players with 800 ratings in one time control but 1800 in another time control. So their skill level is really 1800, even if in other time controls like bullet ratings they are lower. I really don't care why it's lower, but it's not really showing the true skill level of the player.
Should there not be some sort of high rating indicator for a player no matter the time control ?
What does that have to do with chess ?
A player with a solving power of 2390 & a playing pleasure of 1330, causes the rating system to be meaning less.
The skill of that type of player is at Master level and the game play is just having fun playing games with others.
I really don't care how the player gets as Master rating level, it just needs to be a known to the opponents playing these players.
We are getting fault impressions of their skills when in fact they are Masters.
When we play against an engine we want to make the game last. When we play against beginners then a simple mate in 4 might work. Sharks are everywhere and we need to know where they are so we don't jump the gun or jump into a pool full of them.
Serious innuendo-city going on here, methinks ... what's really on your mind
@Toscani ?
When we hover a mouse over a user name, we see most of the active ratings of the player, but not all. If we hover over the rating, it then displays the amont of games for that rating.
What would be best is seeing what the highest active skill level of the player is, including variants. It's not just about playing a chess position, it's about knowing a bit more about the opponents skill level. It would help to better pick the opening to use and to know what to expect from an opponent.
Maybe all that is needed to see the skill of the player is to show the min-max accuracy percentage beside a user name, instead of all the ratings.
lichess.org/insights/Toscani/accuracy/variantMaybe I'm wrong about thinking that the skill of a player is in the highest of their ratings. Maybe the skill is best shown with the accuracy percentage from their profile.
Why do we need so many machines to give us so many numbers? Aren't there already enough numbers and enough machines?
Finally, has truth been reduced to a number?
Imagine that, Reality has been solved and I didn't get the memo ...
idk. there are GMs that kill it in online bullet winning tournaments against superGMs, but don't do as well in classical otb.
sometimes people have a great game and we lose.
Gotta disagree with the claim that the highest (stable) number is necessarily the most representative of skill.
1. The different time controls simply don't require the same full set of skills. For example, a depth of in game analysis skill is useful in classical that will never be used in bullet. Bullet benefits from dexterity and quick decision-making skills in a way that classical does not. More differences exist. It isn't surprising some people would perform better in one time control compared to another. Neither rating better reflects a player's skill. They're just measuring different things.
2. Even ignoring the previous point, the time controls have different pools of players. As the rating system used by Lichess, Glicko-2, generates a relative rating and not an absolute one, the ratings between time controls are not directly comparable. For example, a 1600 rating in bullet does not equal a 1600 rating in classical even *if* the games required identical skills (and they don't). Even *if* the same time control was being played in both groups (and obviously it isn't) you couldn't make a simple direct comparison of ratings due to the different players in the groups.
@Toscani said in #5:
> It would help to better pick the opening to use and to know what to expect from an opponent.
At your level, and for most people on lichess, this is irrelevant. Focus less on meta-strategies and more on not dropping pieces to two-move tactics.
