Suggestion about Ratings • page 1/1 • Lichess Feedback • lichess.org

Hi,

I had a small suggestion regarding Lichess. It would be really useful if Lichess could show the exact rating change in decimals for a win / loss / draw, both before the game starts (expected change) and after the game ends (actual change).

I think this would help players better understand rating fluctuations, especially at higher levels.

Best regards,
Ghotu

Hi, I had a small suggestion regarding Lichess. It would be really useful if Lichess could show the exact rating change in decimals for a win / loss / draw, both before the game starts (expected change) and after the game ends (actual change). I think this would help players better understand rating fluctuations, especially at higher levels. Best regards, Ghotu

mcgoves

I can maybe see how one could find it interesting... but "really useful"? I don't think it's at all useful. You've started a game, so you're already committed to playing your best. How would you use it?

Not to mention, the calculations are done on the ratings that exist after the game is complete. So anyone playing multiple simultaneous games would confuse the system. That includes most correspondence.

I can maybe see how one could find it interesting... but "really useful"? I don't think it's at all useful. You've started a game, so you're already committed to playing your best. How would you use it? Not to mention, the calculations are done on the ratings that exist after the game is complete. So anyone playing multiple simultaneous games would confuse the system. That includes most correspondence.

AsDaGo

@mcgoves said in #2:

You've started a game, so you're already committed to playing your best. How would you use it?

I fear that many people would use it to abort games if the "reward" isn't high enough for winning. And because people are idiots, they would start aborting almost all their games once their RD gets low enough.

@mcgoves said in #2: > You've started a game, so you're already committed to playing your best. How would you use it? I fear that many people would use it to abort games if the "reward" isn't high enough for winning. And because people are idiots, they would start aborting almost all their games once their RD gets low enough.

egon329

Why, so people can play only against opponents that would make lucrative games (in context of ratings)? Not only that people would start games only with "lucrative" players, they would also probably abort already started games in arena tournaments for example.

All in all..bad idea.

Why, so people can play only against opponents that would make lucrative games (in context of ratings)? Not only that people would start games only with "lucrative" players, they would also probably abort already started games in arena tournaments for example. All in all..bad idea.

IamNOTamod

@egon329 said in #4:

they would also probably abort already started games in arena tournaments for example.

Impossible to do.

@egon329 said in #4: > they would also probably abort already started games in arena tournaments for example. Impossible to do.

egon329

@IamNOTamod Sorry, my mistake. It not possible to do that in arena.

Cedur216

edited

@egon329 said in #4:

Why, so people can play only against opponents that would make lucrative games (in context of ratings)? Not only that people would start games only with "lucrative" players, they would also probably abort already started games in arena tournaments for example.

All in all..bad idea.

I don't expect it to go that far. People know that lucrative games are equivalent to stronger opponents, which are therefore harder to beat. Still I also don't really agree with the idea (let alone since it's already in place at chesscom)

@egon329 said in #4: > Why, so people can play only against opponents that would make lucrative games (in context of ratings)? Not only that people would start games only with "lucrative" players, they would also probably abort already started games in arena tournaments for example. > > All in all..bad idea. I don't expect it to go that far. People know that lucrative games are equivalent to stronger opponents, which are therefore harder to beat. Still I also don't really agree with the idea (let alone since it's already in place at chesscom)