lichess.org
Donate

My opinion of the new rating system.

Being good at chess is (partly) a matter of remembering patterns. In classical chess there are certain patterns that arise more frequently than in chess960; also in classical chess it is often easier to predict when known patterns are going to happen on the board. This is why separate ratings are a must.
>In classical chess there are certain patterns that arise more frequently than in chess960.

I don't know from where you got this but it's not even remotely true. There are (obviosly) 960 starting positions in chess960 so why should there be a less amount of certain patterns than in one starting position (which is in fact also a part of chess960)? That makes no sense.
it seems that the overwhelming majority has lost between 100 and 250 ratings points and believe me: changes like these have never been a good idea! (I left chess.com because of their bullet deflation, now lichess copies them). At the moment I am even rated on FIDE Online Arena far above my current lichess rating and premiumchess (= FIDE) has advantages this site can never offer: the first official online chess ratings (official!) + 100 % cheating-protection. The market for chess playing sites is absolutely crowded, by far too many competitors and I do not see the point why I should go on playing on a site where I am rated below my FIDE OTB rating.

Well, folks: I give it another try one or 2 days but if things stay the way I expect them to stay, I will be done with this site. Probably the shortest love of my life: starting playing here, told everybody how great it is here and 2 days later you changed everything...
@Robkin:

What hasn't been touched is your bullet/blitz/classic rating. What's been changed is your 'standard' rating (which before that was somewhat comparable to 'global'). Ultimately, the aim will probably be to be completely rid of a 'standard' rating entirely, and just have the three separate ratings for bullet/blitz/classic.

So, rather than being an 1800 player as an average, you might be a 1700 classic, 1800 blitz and 1900 bullet.

As to playing on FIDE or what not, it just means that the overall talent pool there is of a lower quality than here on lichess. As to 100% cheating protection, I can tell you as a moderator here, that 100% cheating protection online, especially in 90+0 is virtually impossible.

I can also see you've been a member here since December 2013, so you should get the idea that lichess is still in beta form. I'm not going to convince you to stay, or convince you to go, but this current step is just a transition to the profile page redesign, and probably a homepage redesign too (possibly a forum relayout...)

However, as ever, passive aggressive "you made changes I didn't like, I'm leaving" without offering any form of constructive feedback is eternally unappreciated, especially by the developers.
"(I left chess.com because of their bullet deflation, now lichess copies them)."

Where are the ads? We have the forums full of people who don't bother to read and grace us with unconstructive criticism, but if lichess is copying chess.com, then I'm really waiting on the ads, Premium™ Program®, and the obligatory bloated as all hell Java browser plugin. Hey! At least we'll eventually get the mobile app this way.

In all seriousness, this isn't so much a deflation as a *recalculation* of ratings excluding cheaters and addressing any known discrepancies. *Everyone's* rating - not selectively - has been affected. There are plenty of people whose rating has stayed either about the same or shot right up. This isn't an artificial deflation as much as if all the games were played again in a separate universe exactly as they were with the exception of cheaters, and those exact ratings have been brought back, but instead people who simply don't understand how ratings work choose to criticise the developers for assuaging a considerable problem.

Of course, these ratings now favour your strengths rather an aggregate number that is entirely unrepresentative of anything but bragging rights.

Bragging rights are going away. The people who're complaining about that can go away too.
It also means - as you've pointed out in a previous comment, Admiral - that players can try other time controls that they are not so competent in without dragging down their overall rating.

I personally have almost strictly played slow games at around 10+0; it used to be frightful to try playing bullet as it would drag down what ever rating I had gotten up elsewhere. Now I can play bullet without it being a nuisance, or perhaps 960 or some other variant.
Fine !

And without an overall rating, let's say bye bye to an overall ranking :) Why not !
In fact, it's not even "why not". It makes a lot more sense to get three separate rankings, one for each time control.
@#86
I share your attitude torwards bullet games but I only play Fischer Random. So, what is if I want to try out some chess960 1+0?
I've actually thought about what you're suggesting chegm8, and I have little against it.

If that were to happen, it would become the same as Standard. That being, the Chess960 "Global" rating is dropped, and it exists solely as Chess960 Bullet, Blitz, or Standard.

The only thing that is stopping this from happening is demand.

Smndvd, this is being also being worked out as we speak. Nothing is planned for launch as of yet, but I am with you on that suggestion.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.