I am so unsatisfied with the points I earn in a status of 1700 and more. I loose --> -31 - I Win +6 --> eh ? -So my decision is loosing every game til 1400 and then one big win with 400points ? - please explain the rules of score
If you beat someone with a higher rating than you, you earn a lot. If you beat someone with less rating than you, you only earn a little bit.
So my plan is downsizing to 1400 - although I cant believe it - then one good game vs a champ player around 2000 and then I earn 400 pts ? -Not clear - I want to see clear rules for score !
You are talking about your blitz rating. If that's the case then you loose many points because your Rating Deviation is still a bit high.
A high rating deviation combined with a loss against a much lower rated opponent explains why you lost 30 points.
The rating deviation is a number that will decrease the more games you play. Since you have played a few blitz games your rating is still uncertain and therefore you lose many points.
If you want to know how it works read this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system
The rating system is not something stupid, it's something carefully created by staticians who know better about this stuff than me and you.
A high rating deviation combined with a loss against a much lower rated opponent explains why you lost 30 points.
The rating deviation is a number that will decrease the more games you play. Since you have played a few blitz games your rating is still uncertain and therefore you lose many points.
If you want to know how it works read this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system
The rating system is not something stupid, it's something carefully created by staticians who know better about this stuff than me and you.
Thinking of a rating as a "score" is your main problem.
The rating system clearly has its flaws. There's a ChessJuice stream where GM Naroditsky calls it Sisyphean. He would get +0 for a win and -40 for a loss. Not to mention it was developed by a B.U. professor who doesn't even seem to have his own FIDE rating. If you told me a team of mathematicians and statisticians from MIT, Caltech, and Harvard along with several Grandmasters worked together for several years to develop a rating system, that would carry a bit more weight.
@chess240
You're making the same mistake that @Reini is making of thinking it's a score; as if you deserve points for winning. That is simply not the case.
I think people would take great joy in bunny-bashing lowly 800 rated players until they hit 3000 if points were awarded like that.
Additionally grandmasters are good at chess, that doesn't imply in the slightest that they can contribute meaningfully to something that is purely based on statistics for statisticians.
You're making the same mistake that @Reini is making of thinking it's a score; as if you deserve points for winning. That is simply not the case.
I think people would take great joy in bunny-bashing lowly 800 rated players until they hit 3000 if points were awarded like that.
Additionally grandmasters are good at chess, that doesn't imply in the slightest that they can contribute meaningfully to something that is purely based on statistics for statisticians.
@chess240 The rating system Lichess uses (Glicko-2) is not designed for anything specific. It's a mathematical formula, and in this case it just happens to be used to indicate chess skill relative to others in the player pool. Because of this "relative" rather than "absolute" approach, getting +0 for a win can make sense. Say for example a GM has a Glicko rating of 2800 and they beat a player rated 1600. This doesn't mean anything when compared to games vs 2700 rated players does it? Therefore the rating gain is small. However, if they lose that is a huge difference in performance compared to others of that rating, therefore the rating decreases. The point is that the Glicko-2 rating system is built on uncertainty.
Glicko is perfect, to be honest.
@TheKillerSacrifice Thank you!
There is no issue with the rating system. It encourages similarly rated players to battle it out, so that you can't just farm 800 rated players until you hit 3000 like @Clarkey said. The system is perfect!
There is no issue with the rating system. It encourages similarly rated players to battle it out, so that you can't just farm 800 rated players until you hit 3000 like @Clarkey said. The system is perfect!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.