Controlling the rating range is a great idea!
The probabilities of winning an opponent OTB that are above 400 difference is very negligible.
OTB tournaments often have categories something like .... Unrated to 1200; -1400; -1600; -1800; Open +2000
That's a 200 rating difference between categories. So if we put that on a rating range it would be ±100.
With more local chess clubs turning towards the internet, the ratings need to be protected from sharks and players that are aimlessly moving pieces for the fun of it.
This new rating range window will help stabilize a players rating.
Everything has limits and boundaries, well ±500 is the boundary for a chess rating range.
You can set the rating limit, so it is around ±200.
Try limiting your selves to ±100 and discover what others feel when playing equally skilled players.
As your rating progresses, the limits will not need to be changed. You always get players within your rating limits.
Try the new challenge of playing chess only with your peers.
If that's not good enough, then join a chess tournament.
The old one was simple and better. No need to new -500 +500 average.
#20 I pretty much disagree on all points.
1. Does it? If you're afraid of losing, wouldn't you be more likely to seek out relatively weaker opponents?
2. Again, does it? I doubt anyone truly believes that you can *only* grow by playing higher rated players.
3. Why would you try to make a maxim out of it? Not everybody wants to exclusively play higher rated players, so it's a non-issue from the get-go.
At the end of the day, with as many active players as lichess has, you can find an opponent with minimal wait in most variant / time control combinations. I doubt it works because everyone is really nice and considerate, and perpetually trying to balance out stronger to weaker opponent ratio.
When I'm trying to have a somewhat serious game, which is not as often as I'd like it to be, I just join a pool.
Most often I play Casual Bullet with equal to (preferably) stronger opponents as a quick and fun waste of time. I lose a lot more often this way and generally have more fun. I don't think I'm a part of the problem, because there is no problem. Whatever you do, it'll be a drop in the bucket at the end of the day. Chess is a fun pastime for me, and I don't want to use that time trying to make a maxim out of everything I do / don't do.
I dislike it but I understand it.
There's some logical arguments for the change.
However, why does it apply to casual games?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My least favourite thing that's come up with this discussion is the bizarre idea that it's selfish to want to play higher rated players.
"You want to get better? How dare you!" How often do coaches say you have to play good players to improve?
Still holding out hope devs will undo or modify the sideways-at-best change... agreed that choice between relative and absolute ratings would be ideal - I'm actually more bothered by that than the "can't play strictly higher/lower opponents" bit. Don't know how hard it would be to program since they've shown they can do both individually.
lichess app link
I see that most of those who don't like the change prefer to play players higher rated than themselves, and those supporting the change seem to take the view that higher rated players should not be bothered by these lower rated players. Well, for what it's worth, I have a rating over 2000 based on many hundreds if not thousands of rated games here, but soe time ago I came to the conclusion that ratings tend to bring out the worst in some players and so I deliberately started playing unrated games, and I actually quite liked to play lower rated players than myself and used to set the rating range to 1800 and below, unrated. Of course this way I won a lot of games easily but sometimes I would mess up and make somebody happy, and on other occasions weaker players would ask my advice about where they had gone wrong or how they could improve, and I was always glad to be of assistance. The new system has completely disrupted my enjoyment of the site to the extent that I stopped playing here completely after it came in. I am sad about this, both for myself and also for those who enjoyed playing me as a higher rated player who was friendly and helpful. I fail to see how playing a few dozen unrated games a day against players rated over 200 points below me could in any way have compromised the rating system of Lichess. You cannot accuse me of sandbagging nor my opponents of boosting when all our games were casual and therefore did not affect our ratings. I dare say the loss of players lie me is of little or no consequence to the powers that be who make these decisions behind closed doors and impose them without explanation. Such is life. I now play on another site which, while definitely inferior to Lichess as it used to be, is in my opinion more enjoyable than Lichess as it is now.
@BimblingBob it is possible that i misunderstand your problem, but you can use -500 / +0 if you want to play lower rated players.
gbtami I know I can but I can't set it to 1800 and below as I used to do. That is a big difference, and one I will not put up with.
