Active rating lists


Active rating lists

Back to forum

William Taylor    (2011-03-30)
Active rating lists

Hi Thib,

The 'Active' rating lists currently filter out people who haven't connected to the server for 2 months. I think it would make more sense to filter people who haven't made a move in a game of that type for 2 months, as currently the lists contain people who are not active in that game type at all. For example, the poker list contains lots of people who have never played a game of poker on this site.


Don Groves    (2011-03-31 03:30:35)
Active rating lists

I agree with William. In addition, I would like to see players who have never played any game after joining the site removed from all rating lists. Their presence tends to distort the lists.

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-31 23:09:07)
Active rating lists

I do not forget you guys, still thinking about this issue... I finish a big work on Wikichess (hashtables and so on) and launch the championships, then I come back to this ;)

Harshil Meraiya    (2011-04-24 10:20:30)
Active rating lists

Actually it's outrageous. I've been playing for 1 yr and haven't lost single game. still my rating is 1767 while persons just joined and playing no game at all have 1800. Such a stupid site. I'm leaving this site. Nothing is more idiotic than this! Such a waste of time!!

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-24 12:03:10)
Active rating lists

Hello Harshil.

It is mathematical, actually. Your rating cannot reach 2000 if you play only class D tournaments (players rated 1400-1600), which is your case. By the way you played only 3 chess rated tournaments, that is still quite few...

High correspondence chess ratings take always 1 full year to be reached, every strong player knows that.

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-04-25 08:58:00)
Active rating lists

+1 If you want an OTB rating over 2200. It takes years to do. So it is actually quicker in CC play to be honest.

Rodolfo d Ettorre    (2011-04-26 03:22:43)
Active rating lists

Hi Harshil, when I joined my ranking was 1400, now it is over 2000. I only played one class d championship. If you try to play chess rapid tournaments or the ficgs world champion with players whose ranking is higher than yours, you may progress faster. About the ranking system used here, it is pretty standard, you will find it in others chess sites or clubs.

Harshil Meraiya    (2011-04-26 05:37:31)
Active rating lists

I started chess and my provisional rating was 1400. Now I'm rated 1767 after 1 yr and people joining just now have provisional rating of 1800. After 1 yr I'll be 2200 and people just joining will get provisional rating of 2400. Wow! Somebody is idiot here!!

Harshil Meraiya    (2011-04-26 05:42:10)
Active rating lists

And that is not only for chess! Go I had Zero. Now its 322 and provisional rating for people just joining-700! I don't need your stupid mathematical explanations. Just tell me how to delete account. And don't mail me ever!

Don Groves    (2011-04-26 05:49:34)
Active rating lists

The same happened in Poker. The first players who joined were given a 1600 rating. Then after a while it became 1800. I agree this is a problem that should be addressed!

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-27 12:40:42)
Active rating lists

Obviously such changes are not good, but not doing these changes would be just worse... for Poker this is different, new players can estimate their level, existing players with no rating start at 1600, but it is quite easy to reach 1800.

For chess, maybe it should have been possible to start at 2000 from the start of the site (as it is possible in some cases at other sites), but by experience I thought it was too much, and engines are stronger today. Well, actually better would be to have a test to estimate a provisional rating... Still it wouldn't be perfect and not sure it would be appreciated :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-27 12:43:14)
Active rating lists

@ Harshil : To delete your account, please use the form at the bottom of the page "My account", specifying that you want it to be deleted. It should be done within days.

Sebastian Boehme    (2011-04-28 11:02:40)
Active rating lists

Mr Meraiya, please also consider that much effort wss put into this site to bring it to life.
I can not understand how you can use such rude words then, one can also say it in another tone! Words make people.

Jimmy Huggins    (2011-04-28 15:38:53)
Active rating lists

Agreed on that one.

Michael Aigner    (2011-04-28 17:24:52)
Active rating lists

I agree to, completely!!

Hermann Hartl    (2011-04-28 17:57:46)
Active rating lists

It´s better to play for challange and fun instead of playing for rating points.

Don Groves    (2011-04-28 23:41:13)
Active rating lists

Well said, Sebastian!

Don Groves    (2011-04-28 23:45:42)
Active rating lists

Thib: I agree it easy to reach 1800 starting from 1600. But that's not the problem. The problem is it's much harder to reach 2000 starting from 1600 and unless one reaches 2000 one cannot play in Class A where most of the best players are.

Paul Valle    (2011-05-03 23:40:03)
Starting Rating

First of all: This is a great site, and love the fact that the Thib interacts with users to improve the site. Many decent chess sites out there, but this is rare.

When it comes to starting ratings, I would like to add some ideas for improvement:

The point of ratings is that they should reflect playing strength.
Likewise, the goal with starting ratings is that it should reflect actual playing strength.
Rules for both should be as equal and fair as possible.

I) the composition of «Active Players» and their ratings here on FICGS, are a valuable source in guesstimating a new players rating. Most players here play aided by an engine and the site is free, so players here should reflect what comes in the door.
(BTW My minimum definition of an «Active Player», is someone who has made at least one move in the period leading up to the official rating list.)
II) Lightning rating is a good estimate of Correspondence Rating.

I further believe that any choices or complications made to the FIDE rules of one starting rating fits all, should mostly be done to aid good Advanced Chess Players, and good OTB-players. Such complications might not be fair, but essential for FICGS to be relevant to the elite.

My proposal:

«Newly Regs» have a choice of THREE options upon starting to play correspondence CHESS on FICGS:

A) Start with a set rating. I would suggest this be set at the average or median off all Active players. Or a fixed numerical constant times this average. You could of course set up all kinds of formulas, but the main point in should reflect the current composition of FICGS members and not estimates based on unverifiable data given by the player.

Some players might feel that they are way better than this and might be discouraged to join and fight for a long time to reach the top tournaments they feel they are entitiled to play. The seccond option is created to encourage these players to join, and give them a choice to prove their skill relativly quickly and accurately.

B) Play 10 preliminary lightning games (starting with the same rating as in A), and then using the end lightning rating as the starting rating for normal tournaments. These players will get a much more accurate starting rating, and may be well motivated to put in the effort if they care. (If all the 10 games went close to 60 moves, and both players used all their time, the playing time would be around 16 hours)

Then there are the top international correspondence or Over-The-Board players. Why bother these with 10 lightning games?

C) Titled players can start in Master with a higher fixed rating (same as in option A, but multiplied with a higher constant), but must register by credit card to prove identity.

Possible drawbacks and problems
1) Assumption I and/or II is flawed
2) A poor player might be highly overrated choosing option A)
3) Players can dump lightning rating points to a friend
4) Implementation cost – development

-What ya think folks?
reg, Paul

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-05-10 12:38:23)
Active rating lists

Hi guys, sorry for the delay for this one... :/

@Don : it may take a while, but I don't feel it's so hard for a good poker player... but it's kind of hard to say anyway.

@Paul : thanks for such a post with many ideas & questions! this issue is really complex of course but I made some observations during these years and my conclusions were:

- in average, self-estimated ratings are best. during the first years all players with no FIDE/IECG/ICCF ratings started at 1400 or 1700 and it quite distorted the list as many strong centaurs started from the bottom. your idea makes sense but it looks more "esthetic" for a centaur with no official rating to start with a 1900 or 2000 rating than e.g. 1937 :/

- your idea of 10 lightning games is very interesting! but not many players are involved in these games (I guess because of the time they spend on corr. games) and not many would accept to play unrated or low-rated players. I'll think about that though...

- about option C, there were early general forfeits by players FIDE rated over 2200, that's a pity and it distorted (not so much) a few ratings temporarily [actually it also helps to maintain a small inflation of ratings, which is logical] but in the other hand FIDE/ICCF ratings given as provisional ratings help to build a rating list with ratings that "tell" something... such choices are not obvious, obviously :)

Charlie Neil    (2011-07-09 13:28:19)
Active rating lists

I don't understand how Thibault puts all this work in and a vocal few are unhappy. Chess should be fun as well as anything else. Thibault, if any one else complains just give them their money back!

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-09 13:44:04)
Active rating lists

Hi Charlie! The unhappy ones are necessary to make things better :)

I'm quite slow the the updates these days, sorry all.

Charlie Neil    (2011-07-09 14:06:19)
Active rating lists

That is possibly the wisest reply I ever heard to that problem.
It is up in my list next to "When Knowledge speaks Wisdom listens."

Daniel Parmet    (2011-07-09 15:39:26)
Active rating lists

No matter my complaints, I am still *VERY* happy with FICGS and Thib. This site is the best correspondence site I've ever seen.

Don Groves    (2011-07-09 15:57:14)
Active rating lists

Agreed 100%. I'm not "unhappy" with FIGCS just because I think a few things could be better. No one is perfect the first time, not even Thibault ;-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2011-07-09 16:34:00)
Active rating lists

Especially Thibault :o)

Wayne Lowrance    (2011-07-09 19:43:59)
Active rating lists

MY two cents worth. This site is terrific and Thibaut is very, very active in keeping it rolling.

Don Groves    (2011-07-10 05:00:20)
Active rating lists

And that's what matters most, that Thib keeps working hard to improve an already terrific site!