lichess.org
Donate

Fun stats about the Lichess 2025 Winter Marathon

@MillenniumBug said in #29:

[...]

What do you mean with "additional criteria" ?

I mean that highest win rate was 100%. And... In your own post you also mentioned GM BIZOO with 94% and som 16 games. So: What was the exact criteria for choosing the 84% player? I am fine with "decent number of games". But that is not a precise definition...

Ah! For the Highest and lowest win rate I use a minimum of 100 games.
Also see the text below "Highest and lowest win rate"

@MillenniumBug said in #29: > > > [...] > > > > What do you mean with "additional criteria" ? > > I mean that highest win rate was 100%. And... In your own post you also mentioned GM BIZOO with 94% and som 16 games. So: **What was the exact criteria for choosing the 84% player?** I am fine with "decent number of games". But that is not a precise definition... Ah! For the Highest and lowest win rate I use a minimum of 100 games. Also see the text below "Highest and lowest win rate"

@realcyberbird I was having fun going through all these stats until one stat disturbed my eye quite a bit. This is regarding the lowest win rate player(Samirleonel28), who seems to have played a massive 165 games in mere 71 minutes. That's like less than half a minute for each game (interesting). Curious about the, I surfed through his profile to look at the games and saying I was shocked and disgusted is an understatement. That man is the embodiment and utter example of what's wrong with online chess (sadly). He just starts games, plays a couple of random nonsensical moves and resigns. Not once, not twice but hundred of games. I got so tilted, I didn'r even finish your blog. I suggest we all report that account.

@realcyberbird I was having fun going through all these stats until one stat disturbed my eye quite a bit. This is regarding the lowest win rate player(Samirleonel28), who seems to have played a massive 165 games in mere 71 minutes. That's like less than half a minute for each game (interesting). Curious about the, I surfed through his profile to look at the games and saying I was shocked and disgusted is an understatement. That man is the embodiment and utter example of what's wrong with online chess (sadly). He just starts games, plays a couple of random nonsensical moves and resigns. Not once, not twice but hundred of games. I got so tilted, I didn'r even finish your blog. I suggest we all report that account.

@MKS999 said in #33:

@realcyberbird I was having fun going through all these stats until one stat disturbed my eye quite a bit. This is regarding the lowest win rate player(Samirleonel28), who seems to have played a massive 165 games in mere 71 minutes. That's like less than half a minute for each game (interesting). Curious about the, I surfed through his profile to look at the games and saying I was shocked and disgusted is an understatement. That man is the embodiment and utter example of what's wrong with online chess (sadly). He just starts games, plays a couple of random nonsensical moves and resigns. Not once, not twice but hundred of games. I got so tilted, I didn'r even finish your blog. I suggest we all report that account.

yes, I did also notice this and I also do not like it. For the next blog I think I will exclude ultra-short games (<5 moves or something)

@MKS999 said in #33: > @realcyberbird I was having fun going through all these stats until one stat disturbed my eye quite a bit. This is regarding the lowest win rate player(Samirleonel28), who seems to have played a massive 165 games in mere 71 minutes. That's like less than half a minute for each game (interesting). Curious about the, I surfed through his profile to look at the games and saying I was shocked and disgusted is an understatement. That man is the embodiment and utter example of what's wrong with online chess (sadly). He just starts games, plays a couple of random nonsensical moves and resigns. Not once, not twice but hundred of games. I got so tilted, I didn'r even finish your blog. I suggest we all report that account. yes, I did also notice this and I also do not like it. For the next blog I think I will exclude ultra-short games (<5 moves or something)

Another category that could be subject to abuse is highest rating point gain/loss. Since I assume the winner will either be a new account created for the event, an inactive account or one that is cheating. The biggest rating loss one also looks like sandbagging or account being sold since it's hard to believe that in just under 2 years someone went from 2200ish in blitz to 1300ish in blitz in the space of 2 years.

Another category that could be subject to abuse is highest rating point gain/loss. Since I assume the winner will either be a new account created for the event, an inactive account or one that is cheating. The biggest rating loss one also looks like sandbagging or account being sold since it's hard to believe that in just under 2 years someone went from 2200ish in blitz to 1300ish in blitz in the space of 2 years.

@gradychess said in #21:

Question: is there a way for us to check our own individual stats somewhere?

Not really, besides the stats in your profile.

But what data do you mean specifically?

@gradychess said in #21: > Question: is there a way for us to check our own individual stats somewhere? Not really, besides the stats in your profile. But what data do you mean specifically?

@KMcGeoch said in #35:

Another category that could be subject to abuse is highest rating point gain/loss. Since I assume the winner will either be a new account created for the event, an inactive account or one that is cheating. The biggest rating loss one also looks like sandbagging or account being sold since it's hard to believe that in just under 2 years someone went from 2200ish in blitz to 1300ish in blitz in the space of 2 years.

I agree, probably I need to limit it to accounts which do exist for some minimum time (>3 months or something)

@KMcGeoch said in #35: > Another category that could be subject to abuse is highest rating point gain/loss. Since I assume the winner will either be a new account created for the event, an inactive account or one that is cheating. The biggest rating loss one also looks like sandbagging or account being sold since it's hard to believe that in just under 2 years someone went from 2200ish in blitz to 1300ish in blitz in the space of 2 years. I agree, probably I need to limit it to accounts which do exist for some minimum time (>3 months or something)

@realcyberbird said in #37:

Another category that could be subject to abuse is highest rating point gain/loss. Since I assume the winner will either be a new account created for the event, an inactive account or one that is cheating. The biggest rating loss one also looks like sandbagging or account being sold since it's hard to believe that in just under 2 years someone went from 2200ish in blitz to 1300ish in blitz in the space of 2 years.

I agree, probably I need to limit it to accounts which do exist for some minimum time (>3 months or something)

If it's easy to filter then an account with a certain RD or less at start of the event could be a good parameter to use. Since new accounts start with a RD of 350 and inactives that can get big swings gradually increase RD. A 2 month old account that has played 100s of games probably has a relatively stable rating

@realcyberbird said in #37: > > Another category that could be subject to abuse is highest rating point gain/loss. Since I assume the winner will either be a new account created for the event, an inactive account or one that is cheating. The biggest rating loss one also looks like sandbagging or account being sold since it's hard to believe that in just under 2 years someone went from 2200ish in blitz to 1300ish in blitz in the space of 2 years. > > I agree, probably I need to limit it to accounts which do exist for some minimum time (>3 months or something) If it's easy to filter then an account with a certain RD or less at start of the event could be a good parameter to use. Since new accounts start with a RD of 350 and inactives that can get big swings gradually increase RD. A 2 month old account that has played 100s of games probably has a relatively stable rating

@KMcGeoch said in #38:

Another category that could be subject to abuse is highest rating point gain/loss. Since I assume the winner will either be a new account created for the event, an inactive account or one that is cheating. The biggest rating loss one also looks like sandbagging or account being sold since it's hard to believe that in just under 2 years someone went from 2200ish in blitz to 1300ish in blitz in the space of 2 years.

I agree, probably I need to limit it to accounts which do exist for some minimum time (>3 months or something)

If it's easy to filter then an account with a certain RD or less at start of the event could be a good parameter to use. Since new accounts start with a RD of 350 and inactives that can get big swings gradually increase RD. A 2 month old account that has played 100s of games probably has a relatively stable rating

using RD is an interesting idea. This does need some further digging into. Setting the threshold on an good value does not look easy to me. When the value is too low you exclude too many players. When too high you exclude almost no one.

@KMcGeoch said in #38: > > > Another category that could be subject to abuse is highest rating point gain/loss. Since I assume the winner will either be a new account created for the event, an inactive account or one that is cheating. The biggest rating loss one also looks like sandbagging or account being sold since it's hard to believe that in just under 2 years someone went from 2200ish in blitz to 1300ish in blitz in the space of 2 years. > > > > I agree, probably I need to limit it to accounts which do exist for some minimum time (>3 months or something) > > If it's easy to filter then an account with a certain RD or less at start of the event could be a good parameter to use. Since new accounts start with a RD of 350 and inactives that can get big swings gradually increase RD. A 2 month old account that has played 100s of games probably has a relatively stable rating using RD is an interesting idea. This does need some further digging into. Setting the threshold on an good value does not look easy to me. When the value is too low you exclude too many players. When too high you exclude almost no one.

@realcyberbird said in #39:

using RD is an interesting idea. This does need some further digging into. Setting the threshold on an good value does not look easy to me. When the value is too low you exclude too many players. When too high you exclude almost no one.

I'm not 100% sure since I've not found official documentation but I think Lichess also has a RD threshold where if RD is above it then rating is marked as provisional with a ? after it. I think it might be a RD of 110 or below for non-provisional ratings so I would assume that's probably a good number to aim for.

@realcyberbird said in #39: > using RD is an interesting idea. This does need some further digging into. Setting the threshold on an good value does not look easy to me. When the value is too low you exclude too many players. When too high you exclude almost no one. I'm not 100% sure since I've not found official documentation but I think Lichess also has a RD threshold where if RD is above it then rating is marked as provisional with a ? after it. I think it might be a RD of 110 or below for non-provisional ratings so I would assume that's probably a good number to aim for.