Removing inactive players from the "you are better than.. etc" metric via a rank reset wouldn't exactly work. Because... wouldn't they just go back to 1500? And if you were better than them when they were 1700, wouldn't you still be better than them when they're down to 1500? If inactive players are included in the metric, then it would make the metric MORE lopsided by a rank reset, rather than less, because the inactive players CURRENTLY are staying at a rank they rightfully achieved, rather than sitting inactive at 1500 when they're actually 2000 (which would be the case if we had a rank reset).
@jdwhite42 said in #21:
> Removing inactive players from the "you are better than.. etc" metric via a rank reset wouldn't exactly work. Because... wouldn't they just go back to 1500? And if you were better than them when they were 1700, wouldn't you still be better than them when they're down to 1500? If inactive players are included in the metric, then it would make the metric MORE lopsided by a rank reset, rather than less, because the inactive players CURRENTLY are staying at a rank they rightfully achieved, rather than sitting inactive at 1500 when they're actually 2000 (which would be the case if we had a rank reset).
What about resetting the ranks of inactive players after 90 days?
> Removing inactive players from the "you are better than.. etc" metric via a rank reset wouldn't exactly work. Because... wouldn't they just go back to 1500? And if you were better than them when they were 1700, wouldn't you still be better than them when they're down to 1500? If inactive players are included in the metric, then it would make the metric MORE lopsided by a rank reset, rather than less, because the inactive players CURRENTLY are staying at a rank they rightfully achieved, rather than sitting inactive at 1500 when they're actually 2000 (which would be the case if we had a rank reset).
What about resetting the ranks of inactive players after 90 days?
I don't really see the point - if they're inactive for a long while and come back to see their well-earned 2000 rank be at 1500 for an unknown reason they might just say "oh well, i didn't really care about lichess anyway" and go to chess.com i'm not saying they wouldn't abandon lichess if they're rating stayed, i'm just saying I don't think there's great benefit to that idea
@midnightmusicnetwork said in #1:
> This is to encourage people to play more and grind for skill, it is to prevent rating inflation, and ensure that everyone is truly playing at their skill level. You won't have 1800s that should be at 1100, and likewise 1400s who should be over 2000. Also, people should play 20 placement games before they get a rating to know their skill level. Then assign them a rating based on the skill of their opponents, and win / loss record.
>
> Reason. Many people think that Lichess and other sites ratings don't reflect what their FIDE OTB rating would be like. This is because of the different rating systems Glicko2 vs ELO, and the player pool size. Much smaller for FIDE, but higher quality players, where on a website you have casual and players who are aspiring to become professionals. The goal of this is to ensure that the pros are playing pros, and casuals are playing each other. A simple rating like there is now is not taking into account the quality of the players. Not every 2000 rated player has the same understanding of the game, and some got their rating easily, where others had to grind to that rank. Right now, as it stands, it is hit or miss if you will get someone who truly deserves to be at their rank, while others are not. Example: A guy creates an account plays 30 games, gets lucky and gets a 2000 rating but only has intermediate knowledge of the game. His opponents may have disconnected, or were having an off day, etc. But he has a 2000 rating that he does not deserve. Then he plays someone who is also 2000, who then trashes him, and then goes on to get a rank he doesn't deserve.
>
> Eventually you have this chaos where many people are at ranks they don't deserve, or who think falsely about what kind of players they are facing at their rank. Then they make assumptions about some of their opponents being cheaters, when in reality they didn't understand the game as much as someone who really is at a 2000 rating would understand. So on and so forth.
>
> A rank reset would fix this, and this will also get inactive accounts out of the metrics as well which can skew numbers such as "you are better than BLANK % of people on this site". Well, that is not necessarily true if there are many inactive accounts. How would you know how well you are actually doing, and if you are really progressing or not?
>
> A rank reset is needed. Once a year.
uh......no. just no. why would you even bring this up. that's basically saying that FIDE or USCF etc. shouldn't exist or the ratings need to be reset. How the heck did you think of this!?
> This is to encourage people to play more and grind for skill, it is to prevent rating inflation, and ensure that everyone is truly playing at their skill level. You won't have 1800s that should be at 1100, and likewise 1400s who should be over 2000. Also, people should play 20 placement games before they get a rating to know their skill level. Then assign them a rating based on the skill of their opponents, and win / loss record.
>
> Reason. Many people think that Lichess and other sites ratings don't reflect what their FIDE OTB rating would be like. This is because of the different rating systems Glicko2 vs ELO, and the player pool size. Much smaller for FIDE, but higher quality players, where on a website you have casual and players who are aspiring to become professionals. The goal of this is to ensure that the pros are playing pros, and casuals are playing each other. A simple rating like there is now is not taking into account the quality of the players. Not every 2000 rated player has the same understanding of the game, and some got their rating easily, where others had to grind to that rank. Right now, as it stands, it is hit or miss if you will get someone who truly deserves to be at their rank, while others are not. Example: A guy creates an account plays 30 games, gets lucky and gets a 2000 rating but only has intermediate knowledge of the game. His opponents may have disconnected, or were having an off day, etc. But he has a 2000 rating that he does not deserve. Then he plays someone who is also 2000, who then trashes him, and then goes on to get a rank he doesn't deserve.
>
> Eventually you have this chaos where many people are at ranks they don't deserve, or who think falsely about what kind of players they are facing at their rank. Then they make assumptions about some of their opponents being cheaters, when in reality they didn't understand the game as much as someone who really is at a 2000 rating would understand. So on and so forth.
>
> A rank reset would fix this, and this will also get inactive accounts out of the metrics as well which can skew numbers such as "you are better than BLANK % of people on this site". Well, that is not necessarily true if there are many inactive accounts. How would you know how well you are actually doing, and if you are really progressing or not?
>
> A rank reset is needed. Once a year.
uh......no. just no. why would you even bring this up. that's basically saying that FIDE or USCF etc. shouldn't exist or the ratings need to be reset. How the heck did you think of this!?
@midnightmusicnetwork said in #22:
> What about resetting the ranks of inactive players after 90 days?
NNNNOOOOO
> What about resetting the ranks of inactive players after 90 days?
NNNNOOOOO
@midnightmusicnetwork said in #19:
> inactive
@midnightmusicnetwork said in #19:
> Not just the leaderboards, but from the rating pool to ensure the games are fair. Also, for this metric "You are better than "80%" of blitz players"". That's simply not true, because many of them are inactive. Remove the inactive players from the metric by a rank reset.
This is absolute rubbish.
Have a look at my profile I had a proper established rating for crazyhouse. Played a hundred games. I havent played it for a while and now it is back to provisional and it is not included in the rank for crazyhouse.
Easy to check, seriously.
Inactive players ARE removed from it.
Still dont beleive me? why not ask lichess in the other forum for lichess suggestions?
> inactive
@midnightmusicnetwork said in #19:
> Not just the leaderboards, but from the rating pool to ensure the games are fair. Also, for this metric "You are better than "80%" of blitz players"". That's simply not true, because many of them are inactive. Remove the inactive players from the metric by a rank reset.
This is absolute rubbish.
Have a look at my profile I had a proper established rating for crazyhouse. Played a hundred games. I havent played it for a while and now it is back to provisional and it is not included in the rank for crazyhouse.
Easy to check, seriously.
Inactive players ARE removed from it.
Still dont beleive me? why not ask lichess in the other forum for lichess suggestions?
All in all, very interesting comments by a player who has played very few games on this site
My advice would be play a thousand games here, stop being hung up on your rating.
Bro thinks chess is League of Legends
@midnightmusicnetwork
You seem to suggest that something with the rating system on this site is broken and in need of fixing - but do you have any evidence for this hypothesis?
If you play , say, 20 opponents that are at your rating level (plus minus 50 points or so), you should have a roughly equal number of wins and losses - so, it works.
The actual numerical value and comparisons of this number to other sites/system are irrelevant.
You seem to suggest that something with the rating system on this site is broken and in need of fixing - but do you have any evidence for this hypothesis?
If you play , say, 20 opponents that are at your rating level (plus minus 50 points or so), you should have a roughly equal number of wins and losses - so, it works.
The actual numerical value and comparisons of this number to other sites/system are irrelevant.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.