Guys, did you notice that recently ratings on lichess rose incredibly. I spotted that many players broke their personnal best ratings. I gained about 400 points in crazyhouse for about 2 months which is just impossible no matter if I improved or not. I mean it is not a problem if we all get our ratings higher, but it is just strange for other players that come here from other chess servers (fics for example) where ratings seem to be even up to 300 points less. What do tou think?
oh wow nice my crazyhouse rating was last i checked 1400 :D
Yes, lichess ratings are extremely inflated. My rating in real life is around 700, here(1920), so in real life i have 1834 points less than my lichess account.
I never studyed openings and i blunder in most of the matches i played, very weak at tactics, i need to spend around 1 hour per tactic to be 1550 in the tactics rating.
So it's really a problem the inflation in lichess, it would be nice if all the ratings were decreased at least 1200 points and then ratings would be real and i would have my real rating (700).
I never studyed openings and i blunder in most of the matches i played, very weak at tactics, i need to spend around 1 hour per tactic to be 1550 in the tactics rating.
So it's really a problem the inflation in lichess, it would be nice if all the ratings were decreased at least 1200 points and then ratings would be real and i would have my real rating (700).
yes me too, my rating in real life was so low, but then lichess came and gave me another hope in life. now i have a very high rating in my opinion and im so proud of myself. i would give myself a blowjob if i could.
"Rating inflation" has achieved the status of a folk belief in the online chess world. It's like some sort of intractable myth that keeps being perpetuated.
One cannot make a reliable comparison between separate rating systems. One's FIDE rating or online rating on Chess.com, FICS, or ICC is not comparable one's Lichess rating because they're completely different player pools. A rating pool is accurate only to the players within each pool system.
@MeWantCookie explained all of this much more elegantly and at greater length last week, which can be found here: en.lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/rating-inflation-4#3
One cannot make a reliable comparison between separate rating systems. One's FIDE rating or online rating on Chess.com, FICS, or ICC is not comparable one's Lichess rating because they're completely different player pools. A rating pool is accurate only to the players within each pool system.
@MeWantCookie explained all of this much more elegantly and at greater length last week, which can be found here: en.lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/rating-inflation-4#3
I am sorry to tell you esotericist but I just partly agree with you and Mewantcookie.
First of all, many players play on different chess servers nowadays (including myself), and it is natural that people are trying to have some kind of ground or referent number that will approximately represent their strenght.
In attempt to exmplain let's divide rating inflation in outer and inner one. Outer one representing changes in comparison between lichess and other serves and inner 1 changes happening inside the rating system. Based on my experience, I'm pretty sure that drastic inner inflation is happening here on lichess, resulting in a great confusion in terms of statistical interpretations. Players best ratings are broken easily in a short period of time without any need for a personnal improvements. That naturally makes players think they are becoming better whereas they might be even getting worse.
As a consequence of that, outer inflation is also happening, although you might say it is not important. Rating inflations to some extend are statisticaly natural, I agree with that, but they have to be controled. Imagine an average players rating to be 3000 wouldn't it be laughable and a bit humiliating to a chess society?
First of all, many players play on different chess servers nowadays (including myself), and it is natural that people are trying to have some kind of ground or referent number that will approximately represent their strenght.
In attempt to exmplain let's divide rating inflation in outer and inner one. Outer one representing changes in comparison between lichess and other serves and inner 1 changes happening inside the rating system. Based on my experience, I'm pretty sure that drastic inner inflation is happening here on lichess, resulting in a great confusion in terms of statistical interpretations. Players best ratings are broken easily in a short period of time without any need for a personnal improvements. That naturally makes players think they are becoming better whereas they might be even getting worse.
As a consequence of that, outer inflation is also happening, although you might say it is not important. Rating inflations to some extend are statisticaly natural, I agree with that, but they have to be controled. Imagine an average players rating to be 3000 wouldn't it be laughable and a bit humiliating to a chess society?
i feel that the world is ending bcs of lichess inflation. we have to put an end for this!!
btw the higher the rating the less the inflation on lichess, just that u know. especially after 2400, u have seen some 2500-2600 blitz players hold their own against gm wesley so, yet u just want to express your insecurities about the rating u got, just enjoy it and try to improve it is all u need to know.
Interesting old article on rating inflation by Jeff.
http://en.chessbase.com/post/rating-inflation-its-causes-and-poible-cures
http://en.chessbase.com/post/rating-inflation-its-causes-and-poible-cures
@duropo I found it interesting that the author admitted he doesn't have an solid explanation for his rating inflation hypothesis. The term "inflation" (as applied to chess ratings within a given pool of players) presupposes there is an objective measurement that can be made of one's playing strength. No such measurement exists. Ratings are probabilistic and exclusive to the players and conditions within a given pool. Any general increase or decrease in the average ratings among players is accurate and needs no "deflation."
Instead of getting hung up on ratings, a better point of comparison would be percentiles. Again, it's not an objective measurement, since pool systems vary according to the players' strengths (e.g., the 90th percentile for FIDE rankings is 1800, while it's 2000 for Lichess).
Instead of getting hung up on ratings, a better point of comparison would be percentiles. Again, it's not an objective measurement, since pool systems vary according to the players' strengths (e.g., the 90th percentile for FIDE rankings is 1800, while it's 2000 for Lichess).
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.