lichess.org
Donate

My opinion of the new rating system.

"Are they factored into your overall rating? "

The pool games, that is.
As someone who plays classical games almost exclusively, I'm very much in favour of moving away from a 'standard' rating. It seems not very indicative at all of a player's true strengths, and perhaps ironically actually adds to segregating the lichess community in this great panicked struggle over a four digit number. This number doesn't define your skill. I've had various pleasant (and unpleasant) surprises of discovering opponents who don't play nearly as well (or altogether exceed) their supposed aptitude for play, such as blitz players with an exceptionally high rating who've lost their ability to make critical long-term moves in classical time control.

I've no idea how eliminating this standard rating would affect overall ranking, but it would certainly make people a *lot* less reluctant to try out other variants and time controls that they normally wouldn't. It would do away with a lot of animosity between players not only of different variants and time controls, but even among their own.

-- reposting AdmiralA, post 70, because it's exceptionally true.
But what about weight average? I'll be very impressed if someone explain a logical reason.

Why not just a simple average? I have over 6 thousands game played here, but only 300 in classical.

So classical games don't affect my rating ....That is really boring
Because if you've played 1000 classical games and achieved a rating of 1600, and only 1 bullet game with a rating of 1100, it doesn't make much sense to make your standard rating 1350. So the rating is weighted towards your predominant time-control rating.

We're aiming to remove Standard entirely anyway, so don't get too attached. As you can see it's already been pushed out of the limelight in many regards.
include in average if more than 20 games...anyways everything was fine here two days ago.
My rating also going down in flames...

I think my new kofth games dragged me down... Anyway, I don't understand this weird system.

Hope there is method in this madness... and I eventually get it.
It'll be pretty clear soon. The issue at the moment is that everyone is looking to the Standard rating as their main rating, but the Standard rating is in the process of being dropped.

From there in, the system will be this:
-Games under the normal rules of chess count towards the time control ratings. (Bullet, Blitz, Classical)
-Variant games count towards variant ratings. (Chess960, KotH, Three-Checks, and more to come)

And that's really it. Hope that clears things up.
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand this arbitrary division. Chess960 and classical chess are almost the same - the only difference between them is the starting position. You know, it's even possible to get the classical chess starting position (#518) in chess960.

Again, like no other common chess variation ALL the strategies and tactical patterns we know from the classical chess remain the same in Fischer Random. So why do you separate them now? The old system worked perfectly.
Make no mistake that Chess960 is a variant. It's incorrect to assume that a player's 960 ability is comparable to their Standard ability. As such they are given different ratings to reflect the player's different abilities.
The only difference I can see is that there isn't any opening theory in chess960. I wouldn't consider having memorized some pesky opening traps from the standard starting position as a skill or ability either way.

Of course, Chess960 is a variant but it's closer to classcial chess than any other one. I mean even FIDE is more advanced in this aspect. They treat chess960 as equal: http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=171&view=article

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