Berzerking is great and should remain..one of the things that makes lichess fun and unique
@doublecheck-j That might be interesting, but it raises the question which player should be the one to choose first. If we simply remove the option for one player to berserk after the other player has berserked, people will start using scripts to automatically berserk each game, and the one with the faster internet connection will be the one to get it. Perhaps the solution could be that white always gets to choose if they want to berserk before making their first move. If white chooses to berserk, then black no longer can. If white plays a move without going berserk, then black gets to choose next. Might be something to consider.
I think there should be a maximum of 50% Berserk
Congratulations, don't be tired, Sr. Bortnyk!
Bezerking is so fun :) Makes it hard, but worth it!
There's also the option that you don't see if your opponent berserked until both players made their first move. And if both players berserked, there is no extra point awarded. This makes berserking a bit more risky.
As I elaborated in my blog post berserking in a 3+0 game is a disadvantage of -168 elo, which corresponds to an expected score of 0.275 against an equally strong opponent. We can now analyse the four combinations to figure out the best strategy:
I don't berserk, opponent doesn't: expected points = 1.00
I don't berserk, opponent berserks: expected points = 1.45
I berserk, opponent doesn't: expected points = 1.10
I berserk, opponent berserks: expected points 1.00 (and not 2.00)
Just from a expected points point of view the better strategy is now to not berserk. However, berserking saves time, thus it can still be a decent strategy. In addition, if the opponent is significantly weaker, berserking also becomes more attractive from an expected points perspective. A 100 points higher rating is already enough to justify berserking.
And I think this is how it should be. Against a weaker player berserking should be encouraged so that the game becomes more even/exciting. But if players are similarly strong, berserking should be a bit risky.
As I elaborated in my blog post berserking in a 3+0 game is a disadvantage of -168 elo, which corresponds to an expected score of 0.275 against an equally strong opponent. We can now analyse the four combinations to figure out the best strategy:
I don't berserk, opponent doesn't: expected points = 1.00
I don't berserk, opponent berserks: expected points = 1.45
I berserk, opponent doesn't: expected points = 1.10
I berserk, opponent berserks: expected points 1.00 (and not 2.00)
Just from a expected points point of view the better strategy is now to not berserk. However, berserking saves time, thus it can still be a decent strategy. In addition, if the opponent is significantly weaker, berserking also becomes more attractive from an expected points perspective. A 100 points higher rating is already enough to justify berserking.
And I think this is how it should be. Against a weaker player berserking should be encouraged so that the game becomes more even/exciting. But if players are similarly strong, berserking should be a bit risky.
I was going to comment that I'd prefer to see higher quality blitz rather than "just more bullet", but then realised that I don't closely follow these tournament in any event, therefore my opinion is worth very little.
Instead, I endorse Schlosstrunk's comment above.
Instead, I endorse Schlosstrunk's comment above.
Hello @Lichess what does Lichess mean?
Change the rules.
@Schlosstrunk
The top players meet each other often. They know which ones zerk and which ones don't. The zerkers have a huge advantage. I vote for banning zerking in blitz tournaments.
The top players meet each other often. They know which ones zerk and which ones don't. The zerkers have a huge advantage. I vote for banning zerking in blitz tournaments.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.