#7 it _is_ easy. He has frequently been challenged even _on stream_ by Blitzstream and many others, he simply chooses to only play weaker players.
And to rebut the statements on his Aroma_778 account:
"Admins, took first place at the Marta? I can every day to become the first several times. This site is constantly have problems that are not even on the icc, chesscom. Marta_singer - rated for no reason dropped from 2800 to 2689."
I believe this is referring to the time we switched from the Elo to the Glicko-2 rating system. It is a comparison of apples to oranges, and there was a clear reason behind it.
"Loxodonta_africana - nick banned only for the fact that I was in a bad mood and give up all the games. Some nicknames can not be."
Well, this is against the rules, and constitutes boosting. You handed out hundreds and hundreds of points across multiple variants to random people. Don't forget you were bound by this ToS lichess.org/terms-of-service (which needs an update, but the rule is still in effect).
One more thing: we have asked you before, and you graciously complied (which isn't often the case, but you were nice about it), but if Aroma_778 also enters the top 10, I will have to ask you to close Singer__Marta, to be fair to the other players.
"Admins, took first place at the Marta? I can every day to become the first several times. This site is constantly have problems that are not even on the icc, chesscom. Marta_singer - rated for no reason dropped from 2800 to 2689."
I believe this is referring to the time we switched from the Elo to the Glicko-2 rating system. It is a comparison of apples to oranges, and there was a clear reason behind it.
"Loxodonta_africana - nick banned only for the fact that I was in a bad mood and give up all the games. Some nicknames can not be."
Well, this is against the rules, and constitutes boosting. You handed out hundreds and hundreds of points across multiple variants to random people. Don't forget you were bound by this ToS lichess.org/terms-of-service (which needs an update, but the rule is still in effect).
One more thing: we have asked you before, and you graciously complied (which isn't often the case, but you were nice about it), but if Aroma_778 also enters the top 10, I will have to ask you to close Singer__Marta, to be fair to the other players.
#11 #12 Well said.
It seems some players yearn for some sort of top player *ranking* system with simple rules. Any good *rating* system is and always will be complex. Perhaps over time some parallel system (ladder, pool, or something else) could help satisfy that desire.
It seems some players yearn for some sort of top player *ranking* system with simple rules. Any good *rating* system is and always will be complex. Perhaps over time some parallel system (ladder, pool, or something else) could help satisfy that desire.
They put a rating slider for game seeks and then criticize people for using it.
The whole atmosphere in this thread is very unfriendly.
Viacheslav Gorbonosov do not speak English, and it was of course, not very obvious how this rating system works, deviation etc.
Now he leave and probably he don't want to come back.
Without strong 2800 players like him - this site will be much worse.
And it's fun how other people trying to teach somebody what they have to do, or what people to play. People have a right to play whoever they want.
Lichess simply had to update their rules page to avoid such issues in future.
http://en.lichess.org/qa/8/how-do-ranks-and-leaderboards-work
Article on main Questions&Answers page is completely outdated, and it confuses people.
Viacheslav Gorbonosov do not speak English, and it was of course, not very obvious how this rating system works, deviation etc.
Now he leave and probably he don't want to come back.
Without strong 2800 players like him - this site will be much worse.
And it's fun how other people trying to teach somebody what they have to do, or what people to play. People have a right to play whoever they want.
Lichess simply had to update their rules page to avoid such issues in future.
http://en.lichess.org/qa/8/how-do-ranks-and-leaderboards-work
Article on main Questions&Answers page is completely outdated, and it confuses people.
He's not a strong 2800 player if he only plays 1900 rated opponents. That's the equivalent of you (say 1700) playing 800 rated opponents, all day, everyday.
If someone saying "you don't have an accurate rating because you only play patzers" is enough to make someone leave, then so be it. Someone needs a tougher skin.
If he wants a rating, he needs to play people around his level, which judging from his loss ratio to 2100s and 2200s puts him anywhere from 2300 - 2400 in my eyes. Not a weak player, but certainly a coward and very unsportsmanlike.
And if he can't handle people telling him that (the truth), he's welcome to leave.
If someone saying "you don't have an accurate rating because you only play patzers" is enough to make someone leave, then so be it. Someone needs a tougher skin.
If he wants a rating, he needs to play people around his level, which judging from his loss ratio to 2100s and 2200s puts him anywhere from 2300 - 2400 in my eyes. Not a weak player, but certainly a coward and very unsportsmanlike.
And if he can't handle people telling him that (the truth), he's welcome to leave.
In my opinion one should not call players cowards or unfair because they are (only) playing weaker opponents. It´s their choice.
And a rating system should reflect that. I do not have much knowledge about glicko-2 or other rating systems, but I think you need a huge win percentage against weaker opponents (what is very challenging) to get a stable rating on this very high level. Likelihoods or whatever in the formulas of these systems should take care of that.
A 2800 player is a 2800 player regardless of the opponents he plays. ;-)
Creating additional accounts or making more or less unnecessary comments in this special context is another topic, that is not constructive at all. ;-)
And a rating system should reflect that. I do not have much knowledge about glicko-2 or other rating systems, but I think you need a huge win percentage against weaker opponents (what is very challenging) to get a stable rating on this very high level. Likelihoods or whatever in the formulas of these systems should take care of that.
A 2800 player is a 2800 player regardless of the opponents he plays. ;-)
Creating additional accounts or making more or less unnecessary comments in this special context is another topic, that is not constructive at all. ;-)
I'll just note that #15 is Kapsarov, infamous concern-troll.
#17, would you say the same for @IRAN-ATOMIC who only plays people totally new to atomic? Thank god he is off the leaderboard, by virtue of the rating system. The people he beats barely know the game by comparison. He did likewise in Horde. One player sandbagged and multiaccounted to beat him. I had to ban of course, the practice is not permitted, but it exposed I-A to be roughly 1900 rated if he played others of the same strength and no more, really.
#17, would you say the same for @IRAN-ATOMIC who only plays people totally new to atomic? Thank god he is off the leaderboard, by virtue of the rating system. The people he beats barely know the game by comparison. He did likewise in Horde. One player sandbagged and multiaccounted to beat him. I had to ban of course, the practice is not permitted, but it exposed I-A to be roughly 1900 rated if he played others of the same strength and no more, really.
Damn trolls... ;-)
#18 Cannot say anything about atomic, never tried that.
I understand your point; their attitude or "philosophy" does not match mine and most of the players I guess. I like to play against strong(er) opponents, because that´s one of the best ways to get better.
But playing only weaker opponents is not forbidden, it´s a fact and reality. Rating systems should reflect reality (I mean lichess reality in this case ;-))
Is a 2300-player scoring 95% against 1800 averaging opponents a weaker or stronger player than scoring 5% against against 2800?
What would you say if someone gets 2800 by only scoring 2/100 against 3400?
As I stated above... if one behaves correctly, the rating reflects reality - regardless of one´s opponents.
#18 Cannot say anything about atomic, never tried that.
I understand your point; their attitude or "philosophy" does not match mine and most of the players I guess. I like to play against strong(er) opponents, because that´s one of the best ways to get better.
But playing only weaker opponents is not forbidden, it´s a fact and reality. Rating systems should reflect reality (I mean lichess reality in this case ;-))
Is a 2300-player scoring 95% against 1800 averaging opponents a weaker or stronger player than scoring 5% against against 2800?
What would you say if someone gets 2800 by only scoring 2/100 against 3400?
As I stated above... if one behaves correctly, the rating reflects reality - regardless of one´s opponents.
One additional thought... Imagine Nakamura playing on lichess with the incredible bullet dominance he demonstrated on ICC over several years... he scored ~90% in the 1min bullet pool. The (rating) gap between him and the "rest" was immense. Almost always several hundred points because no one was able to come even close to his performance. And now glicko-2 is kicking him off the leaderboard. Is this what we want? ;-)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.