My suggestion is to consider a new rating category: Hyperbullet. But 1 0 and 0 1 would be in that category too, meaning that a new player who plays only 1 0 games would have a hyperbullet rating, and not a bullet rating (zero bullet games). The tourneys could keep the names bullet and hyperbullet, no problem with that. Now they use the same rating category anyway, and they will keep doing it. Just put a message on the 1 0 tourneys like "it will affect your hyperbullet rating, not your bullet rating, even though the tourney is named bullet". The transition could be easily done by copying the data of the bullet rating that everyone already has to the new hyperbullet rating. Since most players would never play anything but 1/2 0 or 1 0 anyway, for the majority of players the only change would be the name of the rating. And for those who are bad in 1 0 or less, and only play it sometimes, they will have a separate hyperbullet (much lower) rating that will go all way down from that point and will not mess anymore with their bullet rating (which will probably go up). Yes or no for splitting ratings?
For me it is a good idea to consider.
Mizar
Mizar
@JulioASantos Why did you start a second topic, writing exactly the same as in the first one? Isn't one thread for that enough? :D
Not only it was in the wrong place, but some details were missing. Maybe it would be better to change the names of the arenas to hyperbullet 1 0 and hyperbullet 30 seconds, since both would affect hyperbullet ratings. And create a real bullet arena, with a 2 0 time control. With 20k players online sure is possible.
1+0 isn't hyperbullet though :).
I honestly don't think this is a good idea. If a hyperbullet rating is added, people will also start begging for a rapid rating, and multiple ratings per variant, etc.. Lichess would just overflow with different kinds of ratings.
I honestly don't think this is a good idea. If a hyperbullet rating is added, people will also start begging for a rapid rating, and multiple ratings per variant, etc.. Lichess would just overflow with different kinds of ratings.
Did you know that after that split, if done exactly the way I proposed, the two largest rating groups would be hyperbullet in first place and bullet on second place? No variant can claim that! That is why I considered and rejected to suggest merging 1 1 time control and up with blitz. Let hyperbullet/bullet/blitz/classical ratings be tangled the way they will be if hyperbullet rating is created, exactly because of the high number of players that will fit in each of these categories. Lichess does not respond to any other entity, it can create his own rules, some people think that 10 0 should be blitz and 20 0 should be rapid but lichess decided otherwise (and I totally agree), so be it.
But 1 0 has the same philosophy of hyperbullet, so it has to be considered as such, mainly because there would be an option to not see adds for 1/2 0, 3/4 0, 1 0 and 0 1 games for those to consider those time controls as spoilers, and that alone can be considered for some players even more important than a separate set of ratings. 1 0 is as much a spoiler as 1/2 0. As for players asking for separate ratings for vars, just tell them that if any var ever reaches an average of at least 5,000 active players for one year we can have this conversation. Hyperbullet and Bullet, considered separately, are way over that mark.
But 1 0 has the same philosophy of hyperbullet, so it has to be considered as such, mainly because there would be an option to not see adds for 1/2 0, 3/4 0, 1 0 and 0 1 games for those to consider those time controls as spoilers, and that alone can be considered for some players even more important than a separate set of ratings. 1 0 is as much a spoiler as 1/2 0. As for players asking for separate ratings for vars, just tell them that if any var ever reaches an average of at least 5,000 active players for one year we can have this conversation. Hyperbullet and Bullet, considered separately, are way over that mark.
"Did you know that after that split, if done exactly the way I proposed, the two largest rating groups would be hyperbullet in first place and bullet on second place?"
That's a lie actually.
28,669 Bullet players this week.
75,719 Blitz players this week.
73,392 Classical players this week.
(at the time writing)
As you can see, Bullet is by far the least played time control.
That's a lie actually.
28,669 Bullet players this week.
75,719 Blitz players this week.
73,392 Classical players this week.
(at the time writing)
As you can see, Bullet is by far the least played time control.
Bullet is too quick for me. I need time to think. Also I think too much bullet/blitz hurts your chess to some extent and helps it in others. Bullet and blitz are for some but not all.
But what about the number of games? That is what I am worried about. That split would give more rating stability to the group that plays by far the largest number of games.
Obviously most games are bullet games since 1h bullet means 20 times as many games as 1h classical. But the point of rating is to be able to compare playing strength and therefore the number of players matters, not so much the number of games. (since your rating will fluctuate a lot due to daily form anyway)
1+0 and 2+0 clearly are very similar time controls: You play fast, usually for mate or other tactics, strategy only plays a very minor role, and playing on time is a real factor.
That's what makes it different from, say 5+0 where games almost never get lost on time and where things like strategy at least play a bit of a role. (depends on play style of course)
But what is definitely different is 8+0 vs. 60+30 or so. The former is blitz, so still very tactical while the latter is long thoughtful game where even endurance can start to play a role. So if one wants to split something, then that. ;)
1+0 and 2+0 clearly are very similar time controls: You play fast, usually for mate or other tactics, strategy only plays a very minor role, and playing on time is a real factor.
That's what makes it different from, say 5+0 where games almost never get lost on time and where things like strategy at least play a bit of a role. (depends on play style of course)
But what is definitely different is 8+0 vs. 60+30 or so. The former is blitz, so still very tactical while the latter is long thoughtful game where even endurance can start to play a role. So if one wants to split something, then that. ;)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.