i appreciate the breakdown. thnx for posting.
I completely agree about not being obsessed with ratings and only looking at how they change over a period of months or hundreds of games.
However, the problem with the class system and never getting worse is that, as we get older, we do eventually get worse. I know a couple of people in their 70s and 80s who still enjoy chess as they can enter U1800 or U1500 tournaments. If they were stuck with their highest ever ratings - 2000+ - I suspect they'd give up.
However, the problem with the class system and never getting worse is that, as we get older, we do eventually get worse. I know a couple of people in their 70s and 80s who still enjoy chess as they can enter U1800 or U1500 tournaments. If they were stuck with their highest ever ratings - 2000+ - I suspect they'd give up.
@jezzat said in #3:
> I completely agree about not being obsessed with ratings and only looking at how they change over a period of months or hundreds of games.
>
> However, the problem with the class system and never getting worse is that, as we get older, we do eventually get worse. I know a couple of people in their 70s and 80s who still enjoy chess as they can enter U1800 or U1500 tournaments. If they were stuck with their highest ever ratings - 2000+ - I suspect they'd give up.
@spidersneedlovetoo said in #2:
> i appreciate the breakdown. thnx for posting.
> I completely agree about not being obsessed with ratings and only looking at how they change over a period of months or hundreds of games.
>
> However, the problem with the class system and never getting worse is that, as we get older, we do eventually get worse. I know a couple of people in their 70s and 80s who still enjoy chess as they can enter U1800 or U1500 tournaments. If they were stuck with their highest ever ratings - 2000+ - I suspect they'd give up.
@spidersneedlovetoo said in #2:
> i appreciate the breakdown. thnx for posting.
And I agree
Thanks, great post. I've always found video game non-numercial rating systems, such as bronze, silver, gold, etc. to cause less rating anxiety/obsession. As a brief example you could still use elo or glicko behind the scenes, but only notify people when they move up/down a rank, or when they wish to see their specific elo rating. 900-1200 bronze, 1200-1500 silver, 1500-1800 gold, 1800-2100 platinum and so on and so forth. You could have three divisions per tier, every 100 rating points. If Lichess offered a feature like this, I would definitely opt in.
> Nobody is more obsessed with ratings than chess players
Ok.. now I have to read the blog..... :) looked at the figures.. appetizing. so many good blogs, so little time...
well. i have no control over my attention, so had a little reading done (i was planning to be orderly and put it behind other reading backlog)... was curious about Glicko mention somewhere, quotes of the author willl do:
> Indeed, while raising your rating can be a powerful incentive to play, the fear of losing rating points can cause players to stop playing entirely.
I would suggest possibly, that it might also pressure toward playing safer and stick to known stuff, leaving the burden of exploration to opponent.. (and if both keep doing that, .....).
Ok.. now I have to read the blog..... :) looked at the figures.. appetizing. so many good blogs, so little time...
well. i have no control over my attention, so had a little reading done (i was planning to be orderly and put it behind other reading backlog)... was curious about Glicko mention somewhere, quotes of the author willl do:
> Indeed, while raising your rating can be a powerful incentive to play, the fear of losing rating points can cause players to stop playing entirely.
I would suggest possibly, that it might also pressure toward playing safer and stick to known stuff, leaving the burden of exploration to opponent.. (and if both keep doing that, .....).
From the blog post:
> The lichess rating distribution graph even shows spikes at each increment of one hundred points, caused by players who stop playing when they hit a rating milestone.
I'd been wondering why those spikes in the rating graph were there, and your explanation makes sense. Thanks.
> The lichess rating distribution graph even shows spikes at each increment of one hundred points, caused by players who stop playing when they hit a rating milestone.
I'd been wondering why those spikes in the rating graph were there, and your explanation makes sense. Thanks.
Ratings are not - as some might imagine - an actual 'thing' that you get at a shop. All they do is provide a dynamic ranking system that indicates where a player is compared to all other players in the same population of players.
The last bit about 'same population' is important. Even if Lichess , FIDE and all the others used the same rating system it tells you very little about where you stand in a different population of players.
The other important thing is that a players (Lichess for example) rating is dependent on the pool of players they are competing against. Australians play a different pool compared with the French if only because of the time zone difference.
The idea of random variation in pokemon cards is translatable to varying skill level (eg because of emotional state or tiredness) within individuals. This 'within individual' variability will cause very large swings in rating.
Which brings me to Magnus Carlsen (or whoever is no. 1 today). His ambition to get to 2900 FIDE is clearly pointless since number 1 is number 1 whatever the rating. Aiming for a specific rating number is like chasing rainbows.
The last bit about 'same population' is important. Even if Lichess , FIDE and all the others used the same rating system it tells you very little about where you stand in a different population of players.
The other important thing is that a players (Lichess for example) rating is dependent on the pool of players they are competing against. Australians play a different pool compared with the French if only because of the time zone difference.
The idea of random variation in pokemon cards is translatable to varying skill level (eg because of emotional state or tiredness) within individuals. This 'within individual' variability will cause very large swings in rating.
Which brings me to Magnus Carlsen (or whoever is no. 1 today). His ambition to get to 2900 FIDE is clearly pointless since number 1 is number 1 whatever the rating. Aiming for a specific rating number is like chasing rainbows.
hii