Comments on https://lichess.org/@/onthequeenside/blog/october-top-25-womens-rankings-divya-to-no-6--hello-kashlinskaya/47ct4nTx
i think yip should be higher placed as she has had very good performances recently including the olmpiyad and us chess championship
Bro ur so wrong
I know you have opinions, and I want to be respectful about this though. Just because they have good performance da does not mean they are good. I forget was Kosteniek there. Also, you had no Krush. There is a reason gm are better. They should also be rated better plz consider changing.
If you use name of one player - Divya in the title, you should use the name of the other - Alina. What is the reason you call one player by name and other by surname? This is at least inconsistent and at most disrespectful.
@d4s_aimless said in #4:
> If you use name of one player - Divya in the title, you should use the name of the other - Alina. What is the reason you call one player by name and other by surname? This is at least inconsistent and at most disrespectful.
Dr bro like get it right. My articles aren’t as popular and yet more accurate. I have at least respect. Plz consider this.
Can you publish the full methodology, the calculations and include the actual points for each player in the table.
The below post is general but leaves out the detail.
https://lichess.org/@/OnTheQueenside/blog/ranking-the-top-10-womens-chess-players-now/TeKhtUSL
Plus, why do you think "Only a player’s better performances matter. Bad performances don’t count against a player."?
goryachkina just proved u very wrong
Top women's ratings are around 100 points too low, simply because there are more tangible rewards to playing the women's circuit than to chasing rating. Similarly titles, to a certain extent even GM, have become meaningless as players come out of left field having studied under our lord Stockfish. Ding and to a lesser degree Magnus and even Gukesh (compared to Arjun at least) are prioritising certain events and thus playing less than they would if it was 960