Rated Chess960 games: time for a change

Hello everyone,

The rating system for Chess960 here on Lichess is highly doubtful, because all chess960 games are rated in exactly the same way irrespective of the time control employed.

Chess960 is (unlike all other variants present here) very similar to the standard chess where no one questions the existence of separate rating categories for separate time control ranges - 'ultrabullet', 'bullet', 'blitz', 'rapid', 'classical'. Obviously, those rating lists differ significantly, because different skills are essential for each category.

Meanwhile, a 30-second Chess960 game affects the ratings identically to let's say a 30-minute Chess960 game. Does it make any sense?

As a result, the ones whose mice are faster and premove skills better (and in general those who enjoy ultra-fast time controls) are regarded as the 'best' Chess960 players, whereas strong or even world top GMs who just happen to prefer blitz over bullet or ultra-bullet (and who would most likely beat the former ones in blitz matches) are struggling to earn 2500 and enter the Top 10.

Thoughts?

Lichess is the Experiment and we are the Test Subjects ?

i don't play Chess960 (Maybe 2 games in my lifetime') I did look at the Top 10 list for Chess 960 but being in the Top 10 List' here on Lichess in ANY category seems very amazing indeed . There are a few GMs on that List & Awonder Liang number Two on that List I believe is a GM by Now as he was a legit Prodigy a few years ago' so he didn't claim a Title here looks-like . Possibly making at least 1 Split in the Ratings of Chess 960 into different categories seems reasonable since like You said there are different skills a bit for players or two more categories ? If you make all the same like in Chess with Ultrabullet Bullet Blitz Rapid Classical there might not be enough players to keep Top 10 very very high . I'm sure there aren't too many people playing Classical Chess 960 ONLY for Instance ... So you might end up with 1500s 1700s on the List possibly . Does seem rather unfair for ALL Chess 960 to be rated the same ... but where to make the Split ? Should all Blitz Players be put into the same category as Ultra bullet & Bullet ? ( Not Helping You) & Rapid & Classical put together ? Or should Blitz Rapid & Classical be put together (Helping You) & Bullet & Ultrabullet put together in another category ? Well like I said I don't Play Chess 960 Good Luck with Lichess making a change here @Former_Player

I think separating ratings for 960 makes sense, but I doubt lichess will make that happen due to the comparatively low number of players in this variant.

@Former_Player said in #1:
> Hello everyone,
>
> The rating system for Chess960 here on Lichess is highly doubtful, because all chess960 games are rated in exactly the same way irrespective of the time control employed.
>
> Chess960 is (unlike all other variants present here) very similar to the standard chess where no one questions the existence of separate rating categories for separate time control ranges - 'ultrabullet', 'bullet', 'blitz', 'rapid', 'classical'. Obviously, those rating lists differ significantly, because different skills are essential for each category.
>
> Meanwhile, a 30-second Chess960 game affects the ratings identically to let's say a 30-minute Chess960 game. Does it make any sense?
>
> As a result, the ones whose mice are faster and premove skills better (and in general those who enjoy ultra-fast time controls) are regarded as the 'best' Chess960 players, whereas strong or even world top GMs who just happen to prefer blitz over bullet or ultra-bullet (and who would most likely beat the former ones in blitz matches) are struggling to earn 2500 and enter the Top 10.
>
> Thoughts?

Sure thing! I complained about that years ago. It's a pity because Chess 960 is a better form of chess without the need to memorize stupid opening theory 60 half moves deep...

this is a fairly well known problem with all the variants. titled players have mentioned to me that it is indeed quite easy to farm up your ratings playing 30 second. but really this doesn't seem like a hill worth dying on. online ratings, and especially online variant ratings are such a dubious metric in general. im just glad lichess provides this platform for 960 and hosts so many tournaments in this variant

@ThunderClap said in #3:
> I did look at the Top 10 list for Chess 960 but being in the Top 10 List' here on Lichess in ANY category seems very amazing indeed . There are a few GMs on that List & Awonder Liang number Two on that List I believe is a GM by Now as he was a legit Prodigy a few years ago' so he didn't claim a Title here looks-like .

Awonder Liang is a GM of indisputable strength, but all-in-all there are few GMs on the list, as you've mentioned correctly. I guess one of the reasons is exactly the rating list making no sense and demotivating stronger players, because while you are struggling to get 2500 in a blitz match of let's say 6 '3+2' games vs an equally good GM, someone else of a lower strength will play some 30 to 50 '1/2 min' games, knocking you out of the list easily.

> Possibly making at least 1 Split in the Ratings of Chess 960 into different categories seems reasonable since like You said there are different skills a bit for players or two more categories ...

Copypasting all the four splits from the standard chess might be too much indeed at the moment, but it seems logical to me to divide the Chess960 rating list into three categories: Bullet (ultrabullet+bullet time controls, up to 3+0), Fast (3+0 and slower blitz and 10-min rapid), and Slow (15-min and slower rapid + classical). Of course, this is very rough and has to be perfected with regard to at least increments and terminology - but even this would be a hundred times better than the current state of affairs.

@mrbasso said in #5:
> It's a pity because Chess 960 is a better form of chess without the need to memorize stupid opening theory 60 half moves deep...

Indeed.

I agree with Former Player point of view about ratings, it's time for 960 be considered as what it is, not a chess variant, but simply chess

@MEGALODON777hs said in #6:
> this is a fairly well known problem with all the variants.
> online ratings, and especially online variant ratings are such a dubious metric in general.

Well, I agree that online ratings are a dubious metric in general, but I've got a couple of points to consider:
1. Chess960 is rather a separate full-fledged kind of chess, not its variant. Moreover, if anything, the start position #518 (aka the standard one) is a variant of Chess960 ;)
2. In the absense of FIDE or other over-the-board ratings for Chess960, its fans have to be consent with online ratings. But what do they get? The otb ratings don't exist and the online ones are a mess. Quite sad.