How long have you been on lichess.org?

@Risky-Chess said in #41:
> #40 You missed german11 who improves steadily but slowly :)
Lol! Playing lot of games at go only worsens play and affects mental health. People like those don't understand even a bit.

That you have not been here as long as german11 or myself does not entitle you to be a churl.

By the way, take a look at my lowest and present blitz ratings, then german11's lowest and present blitz ratings, then look at yours.

You've seen the least amount of rating improvement.

@clousems
You are wrong on yet another thread!
Lowest rating is not the criteria. According to online chess, a player with no knowledge or a layman (you leave no stone unturned to force me to spell layman term everywhere and somehow indulge in unnecessary conversation) has 1500 Provisional Rating by default which will decrease/increase to show true picture.
Who can say that peak (lowest/highest) can't be changed in future. Hence, that logic to use lowest and highest rating is baseless.
Q.E.D.

@SteveWanton said in #15:
> Did I say that I secretly love shadow1414?
> Think, her real name is Tasmia Mallor.

why the hell would you give away someone's real name in a public forum???

@C4LKertanR said in #45:
> why the hell would you give away someone's real name in a public forum???
Because it's publicly available on their profile?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Spoiler : it isn't Tasmia Mallor.

@Risky-Chess said in #41:
> #40 You missed german11 who improves steadily but slowly :)
See:
@)Akbar2thegreat said in #42:
> Lol! Playing lot of games at go only worsens play and affects mental health. People like those don't understand even a bit.
Akbar does have a point and it can't be ignored.
Plus, even GWR is nonsense. People just do random things for world record. Just like that, german11 plays most (at a stretch) which has no value.
If playing many games would make anyone GM, everyone would be having that precious title out there.

#44:
What in the hell are you on about?
Improvement can indeed be measured by difference in present value and past value of ratings. Shockingly, provisional ratings give way to actual ratings over time, which is why we aren't all 1500s.

Ratings are relative estimates of playing strength. Changes in rating correspond to changes in estimated playing strength. Of course, there's always the option that german11 or myself are lucky...but luck tends to be a minimal factor when you're dealing with samples this size.

And, supposing your rationale was not flawed, guess what? You'd still be trying to rating shame a higher rated player.

PS:
I don't give a flying fork as to whether you know what a layman is, so long as I can understand your point-- so you can put that one away. My correction in a different thread was meant to be helpful, both to me (so I could understand a post you made) and to you (so you didn't look like a complete dunderhead). If you prefer to look like a dunderhead, that's cool. You be you. Your misuse of Q.E.D. will certainly help you on that journey, as will your haste to make seemingly quick replies that don't hold water under scrutiny.

If you want to insult or troll me, though, just know that this course of action hasn't really worked out well for anyone.

@clousems
You are way more 'less understanding' guy. Even my favourite rival out there, FC-in-the-UK, is much more understanding than you despite we having debates.

Lets all salute to clousems