Rated Chess960 games: time for a change

@RealDavidNavara said in #20:
> And what about removing the online blitz ratings completely and playing unrated games only, when there are FIDE blitz ratings? :-D

But you must visit Lichess rating system Mr. GM

@RealDavidNavara said in #20:
> And what about removing the online blitz ratings completely and playing unrated games only, when there are FIDE blitz ratings? :-D

As I see it, the point of having a chess rating is to measure one's performance in order to pair players for a game that's interesting and fun for both sides. I find an online rating to be the most useful in that regard. From the two possibilities, I'd rather get rid of FIDE blitz ratings ;-)

You're absolutely right @Former_Player, the Chess960 rankings are a bit wonky right now... I enjoy playing Fischer's brainchild at quick time controls mainly because I am not interested in devoting a significant amount of time to the playing and studying of this fascinating variant, for me there is still plenty left to learn in normal chess :)
With that in mind, my being ranked #3 on the site at this moment creates a massive discrepancy with reality, since in blitz or rapid Chess960 I doubt my strength would be greater than 2300 or 2400 unless I made an intentional effort to work on the game.
All in all, I think separating 960 ratings into blitz+rapid+classical and 1/0+under makes perfect sense, and would help solve this dillemma, but a larger issue is that there don't seem to be enough strong players playing 960 regularly on lichess for the leaderboard to accurately represent each player's true strength.
And your point about the 960 Titled Arenas is a good one, the titled players take knocks left and right from their colleagues and collectively don't get very highly rated... Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, and currently 6 of the top 10 are GMs, but that number should obviously be higher.

While agreeing with almost everything you have said @Former_Player , I can objectively understand why Lichess does not implement different time controls too.

If you do if for one variant, it opens a can of worms and all variants would need separate time controls and it starts to venture into nonsense land. Although Chess 960 is not really a variant, most still consider it so.

The main reason for your post is that it is affecting your chance to break into the top 10....which is a minuscule part of the chess community that I can't begin to relate.

t appears to me that most players are not into 960 for a multitude of reasons and that is the real issue.

This aversion to Chess 960 runs rampant in the chess world and I speculate that it's because old habits die hard and the higher rated the player the more of a vested interest they have with maintaining the status quo.

At one time I hated 960 and wished it never existed because I wasn't good at it and often lost quite quickly in the openings. Now it's pretty much all I want to play. The standard position seems so contrived and boring to me now.

To have any changes made to Chess 960 I think it starts with more titled players speaking out as well as more players in general asking for more tournaments, including OTB and in coffee shops, parks etc. Once there is a critical mass, then the time controls might seem justified.

One suggestion which I initially rejected came down to chess960 games being "allowed" to be rated as "Standard" games. As 960 gradually overtakes Standard in popularity this might make sense at some point and then later maybe not ;) Specialised lists (960 Rapid etc.) are maybe better if it is not a concern whether there are enough players. Currently already it takes a lot of skill to make any list. Even if you have your specialised time control, the other people are no pushovers. In Standard stronger players are supplying knowledge to their opponents in concrete variations so they can catch up easier.

Another factor here is some players only playing white (!)... rating should take into account this advantage. Really hoping for international official hybrid 960 tournaments, otherwise lichess is as real as it gets

@themiddleway said in #27:
> Another factor here is some players only playing white (!)... rating should take into account this advantage. Really hoping for international official hybrid 960 tournaments, otherwise lichess is as real as it gets
Only playing with white is a much bigger problem in (other) variants. Say, in Three-Check, which is very hard for Black, particularly if one likes time controls slower than bullet and does not remember the opening theory, which is my case. I guess that the same problem exists in many other variants as well. (Atomic?) Most of the Chess960 positions are perfectly playable with Black, while the remaining few are unpleasant, but far from lost. Several positions require a lot of precision from Black to get a playable position out of the opening, but those are rare exceptions. In standard chess it can also be tricky if one doesn't know some sharp line of the Sicilian Najdorf with 6.Bg5, Two knights Defence with 4.Ng5, Italian with a quick d2-d4 or so.

@Former_Player said in #1:
> Hello everyone,
>
> The rating system for Chess960 here on Lichess is highly doubtful, because all chess960 games are rated in exactly the same way irrespective of the time control employed.
>
> Chess960 is (unlike all other variants present here) very similar to the standard chess where no one questions the existence of separate rating categories for separate time control ranges - 'ultrabullet', 'bullet', 'blitz', 'rapid', 'classical'. Obviously, those rating lists differ significantly, because different skills are essential for each category.
>
> Meanwhile, a 30-second Chess960 game affects the ratings identically to let's say a 30-minute Chess960 game. Does it make any sense?
>
> As a result, the ones whose mice are faster and premove skills better (and in general those who enjoy ultra-fast time controls) are regarded as the 'best' Chess960 players, whereas strong or even world top GMs who just happen to prefer blitz over bullet or ultra-bullet (and who would most likely beat the former ones in blitz matches) are struggling to earn 2500 and enter the Top 10.
>
> Thoughts?
I think it is a good idea.
The rules are the same and time categories would be great. I think there are no reasons against it. Maybe Lichess will change it

I guess it comes down to what makes one keen to play. For me, knowing that my opponent is a good 960 player and that I will have enough time to give shim a good game is sufficient, in the absence of hybrid facilities for extended games (or indeed serious incentives).