lichess.org
Donate

Why chess ratings don't mean what they used to

<Comment deleted by user>

@DuMussDieUhrDruecken said ^

your article is only one mosaïque stone of manymany reasons for ratings to be distorted esp' anonymously online

simple example
playing drunk plus tired fvcking up your rating by >400 points
then catching up again +400 when sober and fit

also different player pools of tourney , lobby , quick game players, different time zones, generate their own rating gauge

you can't expect ratings to be a mathematical precise value , there's strictly no "number for strength" - only roughly and dynamically changing

There is no mention made about online ratings at any point in my book. It is strictly an analysis concerning the evolution of the FIDE Standard rating pool over the past few years.

You might be right about online ratings, but I wouldn't be able to verify.

@DuMussDieUhrDruecken said [^](/forum/redirect/post/aHrdj8Mq) > your article is only ***one*** mosaïque stone of manymany reasons for ratings to be distorted esp' anonymously online > > simple example > playing drunk plus tired fvcking up your rating by >400 points > then catching up again +400 when sober and fit > > also different player pools of tourney , lobby , quick game players, different time zones, generate their own rating gauge > > > > you can't expect ratings to be a mathematical precise value , there's strictly no "number for strength" - only roughly and dynamically changing There is no mention made about online ratings at any point in my book. It is strictly an analysis concerning the evolution of the FIDE Standard rating pool over the past few years. You might be right about online ratings, but I wouldn't be able to verify.

@DuMussDieUhrDruecken I don't understand why you mix in so many factors (like playing drunk?). Those are surely outliers anyway and a more robust rating system would deal with such a thing. However, the book blames precisely the current rating system for not being able to "Catch-up" with player strength change, not being reactive enough.
While the book is very technical, you cannot "vote it down" because it points out exactly what you point out as well.

@DuMussDieUhrDruecken I don't understand why you mix in so many factors (like playing drunk?). Those are surely outliers anyway and a more robust rating system would deal with such a thing. However, the book blames precisely the current rating system for not being able to "Catch-up" with player strength change, not being reactive enough. While the book is very technical, you cannot "vote it down" because it points out exactly what you point out as well.
<Comment deleted by user>

Since the rating system has become a classic "tail wagging the dog", the question is how chess tournaments should incentivise players in future. Simply per tournament, spending as much as possible on prize monies? Through hybrid there need not be exorbitant costs to participating.

Since the rating system has become a classic "tail wagging the dog", the question is how chess tournaments should incentivise players in future. Simply per tournament, spending as much as possible on prize monies? Through hybrid there need not be exorbitant costs to participating.

Any chance you wrote this book after a couple of painful personal moments? It feels like the emotion runs deep ;-)

Not a problem in itself for the math, but suggesting that individuals are not to blame if they plateau seems to go a bit too far, the effect is usually not that much unless you are consistenly playing super underrated kids from vietnam.

Any chance you wrote this book after a couple of painful personal moments? It feels like the emotion runs deep ;-) Not a problem in itself for the math, but suggesting that individuals are not to blame if they plateau seems to go a bit too far, the effect is usually not that much unless you are consistenly playing super underrated kids from vietnam.

@plopsky said ^

Any chance you wrote this book after a couple of painful personal moments? It feels like the emotion runs deep ;-)

Not a problem in itself for the math, but suggesting that individuals are not to blame if they plateau seems to go a bit too far, the effect is usually not that much unless you are consistenly playing super underrated kids from vietnam.

Unlikely. I attempt to be an objective observer of data for the most part.

@plopsky said [^](/forum/redirect/post/AqNawL1K) > Any chance you wrote this book after a couple of painful personal moments? It feels like the emotion runs deep ;-) > > Not a problem in itself for the math, but suggesting that individuals are not to blame if they plateau seems to go a bit too far, the effect is usually not that much unless you are consistenly playing super underrated kids from vietnam. Unlikely. I attempt to be an objective observer of data for the most part.
<Comment deleted by user>

I believe this problem fixes itself over time.

I believe this problem fixes itself over time.