I am told by
@tw8588 that he did not say that
chess.com was better than Lichess.
Indeed, he did not! And just as certainly I did not say that he did!
So I hope that it is now quite clear to all that he did not say what I did not say that he did!
But getting back to what I did say, more or less (and by "more or less" I mean "hardly at all, but let me elaborate"): concern for ratings is not a terrible thing; and yet it can be a bit like a young lawyer, newly graduated from law school, earnestly appending the abbreviation "esq." to his or her (or its or their) name!
No, wait -- there's yet another analogy: it can be a bit like a meditator earnestly seeking to "become enlightened." How so? Well, it can become caught up in the destination, and its achievement, rather than the journey itself. But it is the journey that can fascinate even if one lives as a hermit, separated from the possibility of relative accomplishment.
Now, wait a minute, Noflaps: are you saying that ratings are mere fluff, beneath the concern of true explorers?
No, that would be an over-statement. And for those who make a living at chess (or try to) -- and I am assured that, improbably, such is indeed possible, -- I suppose it is inevitable that one must worry about ratings, since they might serve as the key to beneficial invitations and career paths. And one must almost certainly attend to business (be it the chess business or some other business) unless one happens to be born rich or to marry very well indeed.
But for many chess players, I even dare say for most, ratings serve mainly as a vehicle used in an attempted flight from humility; yet another measurement by which we may hope to hold our heads high and find reassurance that we are more than we worry that we just might be.
But is lasting reassurance likely ever to be obtained in that way? If we worry about relative accomplishment, won't we always (as a practical matter) find that we are still staring up the ladder at the soles of another's shoes? I certainly know the answer for myself. Like most people, my parents did not have the foresight to name me "Magnus," or to bestow upon me a genetic legacy that might warrant such a name!
So should I not embrace humility and throw away all concern for "relative" accomplishment -- which is all chess ratings (or any other ratings, really) can hope to indicate?
Well, no. That, too, provides an overstatement. Because it IS possible to make a type of "relative" accomplishment that even the humblest among us (like Noflaps) can embrace: a relative accomplishment that is measured not with respect to others, but with respect to our former selves, as time marches on.
Using rating to provide ourselves with objective feedback (to the extent such is possible), as we seek selflessly to penetrate the nearly infinite mysteries of the most wonderful game, seems neither vain nor to be done in vain. To the contrary, using rating in such a fashion seems like a healthy, practical way to tell that we are on the right path to such penetration.
It is not inconsistent with recognizing, as a wiser person approximately once said, that chess is a sea from which a gnat may drink and in which an elephant may bathe.
But merely for the purpose of tracking our own progress -- for providing ourselves, humbly, with feedback as we try to learn -- it would not really matter if we started at 1500 or at 1200. No matter where we start, we can use that starting point as a benchmark to determine, over time, whether we are learning what we earnestly seek to learn. So for that purpose, which seems a rather high and selfless purpose, Lichess ratings seem perfectly fine. And so do the ratings provided by other sites.
Of course, let me carefully point out that I do not accuse
@tw8588 of suggesting otherwise.
@tw8588 writes clearly and in a way that speaks for itself. I do not in any way attempt to imply anything at all. I prefer never to imply but rather expressly to state, and even belabor almost inexplicably, what I mean to say.
