@sammgus tells me that "my" answer (according to him) is "five miles is more running than four miles, and less running than six, but do not be overly concerned about the distance lest I judge you unenlightened."
That is not remotely what I said. So when he goes on to say "that is no answer at all, Noflaps," he should, instead, have said "that is no answer that you actually provided, Noflaps."
If you are going to try to put me in my place,
@sammgus, for whatever reason you find that important, I suggest you first determine the actual location of my place. Inventing words and putting them in quotation marks, and pretending that I said them, will not move you closer to that location.
Let me try again: Let us say that Lichess rates somebody -- let's call him "Bob" for convenience (since it's easy to type) -- and provides him with a rating of 1900.
Let us say that Bob then tries
chess.com, and finds his rating there to be only 1700 (this is hypothetical -- a mere thought experiment).
Why might that NOT be cause for worry, or even modest concern? Is that possible? Should he use that difference to prefer one site over the other?
I will not try to speak for you,
@sammgus. But if I were Bob, the rating difference between those two sites (or any two sites) would not concern me. But why not? Because ratings, from wherever they start, are internally consistent at the particular site at which they are established. Why? Because a site has its own rating calculation algorithm and its own ratings pool.
And those things can be different as between different sites. But at any one site, they remain consistent for THAT SITE over time -- sometimes even over a long, long time.
And BECAUSE OF THAT, they can be used to determine PROGRESS (or the lack thereof) consistently. And that is how ratings are most genuinely useful, for most.
So, if Bob works hard at Lichess and sees his rating jump from 1900 to 2090, he will have attained 110 percent of his former rating! Great job, Bob!
But what if Bob checked out his new rating at
chess.com (hypothetically speaking, of course). And -- oh, no! oh, no! -- it is merely 1870! Indeed, it is still lower than his rating at Lichess -- even his INITIAL rating at Lichess! Should Bob be upset?
Well, I must ask: why should he care? Does it matter? I wouldn't matter to me, if I were Bob. Is that because I am "enlightened" as you appear to think I am saying? No. Not at all. I do not claim enlightenment. My relatives know better.
Here's why I wouldn't care: It's because our hypothetical increase at
chess.com, from 1700 to 1870, STILL SHOWS -- JUST AS WELL -- that Bob has improved to 110 percent of his former level. Great job, Bob! (The same great job).
So, in other words, "absolute" ratings at any one internet playing site don't seem to be of any real importance outside of that one site. And the ratings at ANY site can be useful to show improvement (or, we hope not, decline). And that is the most practical and helpful use for ratings that there is, is it not? (Unless one is a professional player who can use higher ratings to enhance his career prospects -- but even such players use ratings from FIDE, or perhaps a national rating, to do that).
So, my real "place" -- and perhaps you will join me there -- is this: rating differences between internet playing sites aren't as important as they might seem at first glance. And a Lichess rating can useful and helpful at Lichess, just as a
chess.com rating can be useful and helpful at
chess.com.
That's all I was attempting to say. And I wish I had used mathematics the first time to explain it, since math is a universal language that often adds clarity. Especially among intelligent, thoughtful people like I assume
@sammgus to be, despite his apparent unhappiness with my earlier post.
