@nikolajtesla,
@stockmodo_007 if you want to share your thoughts about Kingscrusher's idea for separate Berserk ratings, here is the right place to post them. On the other hand, if you want to share your opinions on Atrophied's ban, I think the right place is this:
lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/lichess-banned-atrophied Hi all, I have three example scenarios to consider where separate Beserk ratings would be interesting to see how in theory they would effect the scenarios given:
1) Include more people in Minimum Rating tournaments e.g. Elite super blitz : Minimum Rating to enter is officially 2200 to enter.
Last time (last Sunday), I was under 2200 (about 2170) so technically (lets ignore FIDE titled exemptions) couldn't enter the last Elite superblitz. WHen I have entered it into the past I have often been in the top 10 of about 70+ or so. I usually DONT beserk at all when in an Elite tournament - to give myself maximum chance in each game.
Now I think there is a titled player caveat and so I could have entered it at 2170 anyway because of my CM title. But anyway, in this scenario, if my berserk superblitz rating had been kept seperate from my superblitz rating, and I wasn't a FIDE titled player, then I would probably have been over 2200 and been able to enter the Elite Superblitz.
In conclusion in this example, those that do want to beserk and try and win tournaments may be getting excluded from the minimum entry tournaments - and actually these sort of players may also play fun interesting dynamic chess as they are kind of more "risk taker" psychology types. So without these beserker types, maybe those minimum entry tournaments become less interesting.
2) Encourage Tournament leaders to give odds more: Especially for example tournament leaders who have massive points leads and are 200+ rating points higher than everyone else. This happened in the last four days. For some reason, I ended up 3rd in one of the Hyperbullets recently when I had to play the killer tournament leader about 10 times, and the person who came 2nd only had to play him twice. That's weird as it keeps happening to me recently but that is another story (e.g. yesterday's daily bullet I had to play the IM about 6 times, and ended up 5th - and those that came 2nd-4th only had to play the IM just once or twice).
Anyway, my main point is that perhaps if these "killers" were given the option for sporting beserks without risking their rating, then they might be more tempted to beserk to give others a chance to beat them more without risking their main rating. In these scenarios they are already miles clear of anyone else, so unless they want a perfect score, they might be more tempted to beserk if their main rating was kept intact. Maybe they are coaches or something and also don't want to have "credibility damage" or something.
3) Rating comparison to other sites. I always have found it weird when people ask about comparisons to other sites. Well firstly you can't compare anyway to other sites because of different player pools. But also because of Beserking, i always feel that as a competitive tournament player, I will sacrifice my rating for winning tournaments (or trying to). However, perhaps this is creating generally a rating list here which is subject to such major bias for many players. Having a separate beserk rating would mean more rating accuracy overall. Example someone alluded to earlier:
Morphy gave odds to people and often lost. Morphy's odds rating (e.g. knight odds) should in theory be kept separate to his main rating.
The argument about the downside of beserking being damage to one's own rating is really not clear because you end up damaging the entire rating list basically. No one should be able to do damage to the rating list credibility.
Cheers, K
I quote a paragraph from Wikipedia, that some of you may find interesting:
«In the mid-19th century [...] odds-giving became a way for masters to entice amateurs into playing for wagers, since the odds gave the amateur a fighting chance. The odds system even became the earliest rating system: amateurs were graded according to what handicap they needed to compete against a master, and were referred to as a "Rook player" or "Pawn and move player", for example, as we would today speak of players by their Elo ratings (e.g. a "1200 player" or an "1800 player").»
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_(chess)So, if the ELO, Glicko, and other rating systems had not been invented to this day, but we still had internet and chess servers and all this stuff, we may graded players according to their Berserk ratio. For example an 80% Berserker would be considered a better player when compared to a 60% Berserker! :-)
Hi tryphon gariefile i have see kingscrusher posted 500 videos æňņæ
I brought up this idea about a year ago but got almost no support... I still fully support the idea.
It appears that most players' berserk performance in 1 minute chess is about 250-270 below their regular rating, from my observations. However I think that the best way to do this is to have two separate ratings rather than just take away 260.
The way this could work is when you're paired up with someone, both regular ratings show, if you click berserk your regular rating gets replaced by the berserk rating and then all the regular rating calculations would follow.
It's beneficial to both berserker and berserkee in terms of maintaining accurate ratings
Berserk should only be allowed in casual games. The next thing will be people suggesting separate ratings based on what time of the day you play.
For example, I'm much stronger in the evening than in the mornings so there should be a new rating based on moon phases and the current positioning of the sun.
@Skeftomilos I came here to tell that "As long as you are trying to win" is too subjective and can be interpreted in either way (therefore is too bad for a rule). Regarding separate berserking rule: I do not like the idea of berserking at all, but it looks like it is here to say, so I would rather have a separate rating for it.
@stockmodo_007 I will also do a favor for you boy. I will explain you one more time (looks like you unable to understand my point) that "as long as you are trying to win" is not a valid rule because it is subject to interpretation. You also told: 'You need to analyze more games, actually to make statistical pattern of the person and to look for deviations'. Do you have the proof that this has been done in case of Atrophied? I am not arguing that it has not been done, but if it was, show it (the player has not just closed his account and ran away).
After reading yours 'Lichess owe You nothing' I am not sure whether you can read and understand written English properly. Where have I told that lichess owes me anything? They can do whatever they want (ignoring peasants is one of it) and I am totally ok with this. Lichess is free, so as almost every other site (will open your eyes and tell you that you are not forced to buy membership and can use adblock. They just selected a different strategy to get money).
Another possibility would be to have berserking affect exactly how much ratings change.
Lichess now has a ton of data about exactly how often (for example) 1700 players beat 1500 players both with and without berserk, so it has some idea about what might be a reasonable post-game rating change when one player berserks (if both berserk then probably the standard formula would suffice)
@Skeftomilos Your argument is extremely compelling and I have been convinced.
My thoughts about Kingscrusher's idea for separate Berserk ratings. The idea is theoretically correct. Games played with handicap should not be rated along with games without handicap. There are various practical implications that make the idea less compelling for implementation though. Others have already pointed out the increased possibilities for rating manipulation, by choosing to berserk under certain conditions (#28). Even more problematic could be the visual clutter that the multiplication of ratings would bring to the site. There are already 12 different rating categories, that will become 24 after the ratings separation:
1) Bullet
2) Blitz
3) Classical
4) UltraBullet
5) Crazyhouse
6) Chess960
7) King of the Hill
8) Three-check
9) Antichess
10) Atomic
11) Horde
12) Racing Kings
More screen real-estate will be needed to display the added information, and many listings will have to be redesigned so that both ratings (normal and berserk) are visible.
Then decisions will have to be made about which of the two ratings will be used to allow participation to rating-capped tournaments.
Some players have an extreme preference to always berserk, or never berserk, causing one of the two ratings to be absent or meaningless. So the berserk ratio will have to be displayed along with the two ratings, adding more visual clutter to the user interface.
Worst of all, it will restrict the prospect of future development of handicap options. I don't think that playing with knight odds will become popular any time soon, but it is possible that some crazy-fast players would welcome the introduction of further berserk options. For example Hyper-berserk, with the player voluntarily sacrificing 3/4 of his available time, or Ultra-berserk (berserk upon berserk upon berserk). It should be real fun to try and win an ultra-bullet tournament, by ultra-berserking every single game, leaving yourself with just 1.9 seconds to complete each game!!! :-)
Of course having only one berserk rating for all the different berserk options would be equally unfair with the current situation, and having different ratings for every berserk option would totally blow the whole thing out of proportion. So I think that the current problem needs a different solution, but unfortunately I have nothing better to propose.
