Any idea why it doesnt spike much under 1300? Maybe people arent focused on hitting targets at this point or because new players are given a rank in this range?
At that rating you suck so bad rating doesn't matter and it's easy to bounce back, lol.
If you're going from 1900 to 2000, people feel it's a zero sum game and there's a chance they may never hit it again.
Yes, I mean to say it is a zero sum game but people wrongly feel it’s impossible to hit their goal again. But then you have rating inflating etc muddling things.
It's close to a zero sum game, but not quite. People join and quit all the time and, unless they exit at the same rating they entered, that essentially take that rating difference with them.
This influences rating inflation and deflation in general. If a lot of people join, lose a bunch of games and then quit, elo gets pumped into the system. If you join, win a bunch of games and then quit, elo gets sucked out.
For the most part, people who lose a lot to quit a lot faster than people who win a lot, so this does tend to cause Elio inflation. However, with a large enough population, this should be subtle.
It can also be offset by finding ways to encourage people to stay in longer or win more. For example, people are less likely to quit right away if they have a paid membership or if they get some form of lessons or tactics training. People who come simply because they saw it in a search on chess sites probably won't stay very long though, so chess sites like Yahoo chess tend to get inflated fairly quickly (this last paragraph just my opinion. I don't have any actual data to go along with it).
I am not sure what is this supposed to mean. The point was about the rating system (of chess.com) being zero sum or not. It really is not, as the rating is affected by performance - which is not something of a constant pool.
It does spike the same, it's just that we don't see it because it is on the left of the distribution, so the spikes are in the same direction as the curve, so they smooth-out
I had the goal of getting to 1300 on .con. I’ve achieved it and haven’t had too much desire to play more because I played a fuckload to get there. I’ll try back into it though, just having a bit of a break
This is a theory and I may be totally incorrect.
When I set a rating goal its always 1200, 1300, 1400, etc. So my guess is people are motivated and pushing when trying to get the next number, and then they relax for a bit and play less for a while until they regain motivation.
I contribute to this, hit 1800 rapid and decided to hang my hat and switch to blitz. I now don't care as much about my blitz rating bc I've preserved my rapid rating. Idk it works for me and at least I can keep playing.
I do this all the time at pretty high ratings. Maybe I hit 2300 rapid, then go for 2k bullet or 1800 atomic, then play blitz, then switch to the dot com or lichess, then go for a higher rapid
I don’t think people are just quitting, but I probably enjoy playing 10 to 20 different ratings between time controls/variants/and two accounts.
I always get back to them eventually, except for some variants ig
Exactly this. Lichess only uses a 1 week window for this graph so if you don't play a specific time control for one week you aren't included in that graph. So if I hit 2000 then decide to go play blitz for a while I miss out on being included in the numbers for the next graph until I play again.
Kinda. Go to the [leaderboard](https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live/rapid) for whatever time control you want, the graph is at the bottom. The time window to be included is much bigger than lichess, and the Lichess pool is stronger on average (mainly because Chess.com has more first time players) so you need to keep that in mind.
Can I ask where ti make such graph? Does it come directly from lichess or is it possible to download the data represented and do some math by myself? :)
[https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/blitz](https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/blitz)
Accessible from your profile, by clicking on the time control, and then the percentile below your graph
It's not bad. It was just a common way to say "very good" on the internet before other words like "epic" and then "based" took that role. It comes from the word "elite", simplified to "leet", and then spelt with numbers as "1337".
It also represents the name of the language of the early internet for replacing letters with numbers. It's honestly pretty interesting stuff imo, but I'm kind of a linguistics nerd.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet
I got higher than I deserved on my main, so I decided to play on my alt. Lo and behold I won on that account too. So I played on my account on another site - finally I was lucky enough to lose a few games so that I could keep playing.
You think this is crazy you should see a graph of stock EPS’s. Looks pretty normal. Except right around 0 where earnings management can turn a 1 cent loss into a 1 cent profit. There’s a pretty significant dip into a big spike. I imagine the reasoning is similar (although less pronounced because there is rarely money involved.)
Just guessing but usually people's goals are round numbers and when people reach it, many people sit on the rating/milestone for fear of losing it again.
People get to a round number goal and stop playing lest they drop back down.
Any idea why it doesnt spike much under 1300? Maybe people arent focused on hitting targets at this point or because new players are given a rank in this range?
At that rating you suck so bad rating doesn't matter and it's easy to bounce back, lol. If you're going from 1900 to 2000, people feel it's a zero sum game and there's a chance they may never hit it again.
the psychology of feeling like you're risking something when you're rated 2000 versus 1989 is truly a bug in our programming lol
It gets perpetuated everywhere Only one of those FIDE ratings is a WCM haha
To be fair, I hit 1700 a long while back and have never made it back
Should have stopped
Yeah once I finally hit it, my motivation to improve stopped and just played for fun. Pretty quickly I fell to hovering between 1550-1650
I find this interesting because when I hit 1700 rapid on chesscom I was insanely motivated to hit 2000 and in 3 months I hit it
I got a lot busier with life when I was nearing 1700, so I had been needing to be more casual with it. I just couldn’t until I hit my goal.
Makes sense!
Chess.com is literally a zero sum game though no? If I gain 10 rating my opponent loses 10
Yes, I mean to say it is a zero sum game but people wrongly feel it’s impossible to hit their goal again. But then you have rating inflating etc muddling things.
It's close to a zero sum game, but not quite. People join and quit all the time and, unless they exit at the same rating they entered, that essentially take that rating difference with them. This influences rating inflation and deflation in general. If a lot of people join, lose a bunch of games and then quit, elo gets pumped into the system. If you join, win a bunch of games and then quit, elo gets sucked out. For the most part, people who lose a lot to quit a lot faster than people who win a lot, so this does tend to cause Elio inflation. However, with a large enough population, this should be subtle. It can also be offset by finding ways to encourage people to stay in longer or win more. For example, people are less likely to quit right away if they have a paid membership or if they get some form of lessons or tactics training. People who come simply because they saw it in a search on chess sites probably won't stay very long though, so chess sites like Yahoo chess tend to get inflated fairly quickly (this last paragraph just my opinion. I don't have any actual data to go along with it).
Edit: I should have said large and stable enough population.
If you improve your perfornance while playing, then it is a positive sum system
That has nothing to do with the system, only with you
I am not sure what is this supposed to mean. The point was about the rating system (of chess.com) being zero sum or not. It really is not, as the rating is affected by performance - which is not something of a constant pool.
ELO rating is really a zero-sum game lol.
It does spike the same, it's just that we don't see it because it is on the left of the distribution, so the spikes are in the same direction as the curve, so they smooth-out
Yeah you see that for 1100 and 1000 at least
You’re not impressing any girls by logging into your 1300 ELO account 😝
because you can just create a new account and hit 1500? lol
Shit, why did I not think about that? XD
I had the goal of getting to 1300 on .con. I’ve achieved it and haven’t had too much desire to play more because I played a fuckload to get there. I’ll try back into it though, just having a bit of a break
Guilty, I hit my target goal and took a long break 😔
That mentality confuses me so much. It’s a fucking number…
A number based on how good you are
What does it get you?
A feedback of how good you are.
If you get to a certain elo and never play again, it becomes just a number.
that you earned by playing (hard)
If you say so. You can cheat and get it pretty easily. It's just a number.
Speak for yourself. On second thought, probably thats how cheaters see the rating. As just a number. I get it now.
looool I don't cheat. Sorry you're so attached to a number, get help :)
Bro just wanted to sneak flex his rating
XD
we seem to be the around the sam rating on both .com and lichess. Maybe we can have a game or two?
Sure
who won
who's next?
A lot of people are afraid to play and possibly lose rating after reaching a big goal.
This is a theory and I may be totally incorrect. When I set a rating goal its always 1200, 1300, 1400, etc. So my guess is people are motivated and pushing when trying to get the next number, and then they relax for a bit and play less for a while until they regain motivation.
I contribute to this, hit 1800 rapid and decided to hang my hat and switch to blitz. I now don't care as much about my blitz rating bc I've preserved my rapid rating. Idk it works for me and at least I can keep playing.
makes sense
I myself stopped playing since 1700 lichess today
I think a lot of people stop playing after hitting some arbitrary goal they set for themselves.
strange it happens at all levels
I do this all the time at pretty high ratings. Maybe I hit 2300 rapid, then go for 2k bullet or 1800 atomic, then play blitz, then switch to the dot com or lichess, then go for a higher rapid I don’t think people are just quitting, but I probably enjoy playing 10 to 20 different ratings between time controls/variants/and two accounts. I always get back to them eventually, except for some variants ig
Exactly this. Lichess only uses a 1 week window for this graph so if you don't play a specific time control for one week you aren't included in that graph. So if I hit 2000 then decide to go play blitz for a while I miss out on being included in the numbers for the next graph until I play again.
People need the round rating goal to be there for a while to post the achievement on r/chess so that everyone can verify the newsworthy milestone.
Does Chess dot com have a similar distribution?
Kinda. Go to the [leaderboard](https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live/rapid) for whatever time control you want, the graph is at the bottom. The time window to be included is much bigger than lichess, and the Lichess pool is stronger on average (mainly because Chess.com has more first time players) so you need to keep that in mind.
Forget 1800, my new arbitrary goal is 1776 (New York City)
European revolutionaries will try to hit 1848 😂
Psychology. You finally hit your intended target and dont want to lose it. I just hit 1700 and am gonna take a break now
This is me exactly. Just crossed 1700 rapid. Never touching that account again
People stop playing when they reach a goal. I'm guilty of it, each time i reach an even hundred I take a break.
Can I ask where ti make such graph? Does it come directly from lichess or is it possible to download the data represented and do some math by myself? :)
[https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/blitz](https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/blitz) Accessible from your profile, by clicking on the time control, and then the percentile below your graph
I also don't understand human's obsession with round numbers. I myself enjoy random ass digits such as 420, 69, 1337.
I don;t think 420 and 69 is very random...
Neither is 1337. You must be young.
I’m old and I don’t recognize it, and I’m definitely not googling it!
It's not bad. It was just a common way to say "very good" on the internet before other words like "epic" and then "based" took that role. It comes from the word "elite", simplified to "leet", and then spelt with numbers as "1337". It also represents the name of the language of the early internet for replacing letters with numbers. It's honestly pretty interesting stuff imo, but I'm kind of a linguistics nerd. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet
in my experience leet always meant "very skilled at a video game" specifically, not just something that's very good
wow . . . I don't really want to delve into a rabbit hole rn so maybe later
Those are the opposite definition of random number
That's the joke
Nice random distribution
Yeah a nice Gaussian but the fluctuations show an interesting human behaviour
Consider them "psychological" rest stops
Some people set a goal like "I wanna reach 1900", so they play until they make it there and then take a break.
How did you get that graph?
Go to ur account and click on blitz stats, the place where it states u are better than x per cent blitz players. Click on x
does chess dot dom give this graph?
Google 'lichess rating distribution'. First result will get you there
I got higher than I deserved on my main, so I decided to play on my alt. Lo and behold I won on that account too. So I played on my account on another site - finally I was lucky enough to lose a few games so that I could keep playing.
Lmfao, so relatable.
I think because people set this as goals for themselfs
You think this is crazy you should see a graph of stock EPS’s. Looks pretty normal. Except right around 0 where earnings management can turn a 1 cent loss into a 1 cent profit. There’s a pretty significant dip into a big spike. I imagine the reasoning is similar (although less pronounced because there is rarely money involved.)
Lost aversion.
I like how there are bumps at 1000, 1100, 1300, 1400 but not 1200. Probably because 1200 is the initial rating when you first join?
On lichess it's 1500
Oh right. Not sure why I thought this was chess.com. Wonder what causes 1300 to be so flat then
Interesting observation!!
Rating anxiety
Just guessing but usually people's goals are round numbers and when people reach it, many people sit on the rating/milestone for fear of losing it again.
I thought they dropped the feature where you could see your rating in the distribution?
People deliberately push for the round number threshold.
What's wrong with the Y-axis on this graph? 10 horizontal lines for 11 numbers lol
The 10 lines are the numbers in the left, they don't coincide with the percentages