@helloworld_1064 said in #37:
> so, what should I do, Sandbag my puzzle rating or increase my classical rating.
Increase your classical.
> Also, my peak puzzle rating on chess.com is 3067, but recently my rating decreased by 100 points so It is 2700-2800 currently
Having reached 3000+ in chess.com puzzles before, I'm not saying I don't believe you.
But you have to prove it through games.
For example, I can not prove my rating through games because I barely play any.
Would you expect a 1600 to have a 3000 rating? No? Then you need to play games. A lot of them. Get your rating to match.
> so, what should I do, Sandbag my puzzle rating or increase my classical rating.
Increase your classical.
> Also, my peak puzzle rating on chess.com is 3067, but recently my rating decreased by 100 points so It is 2700-2800 currently
Having reached 3000+ in chess.com puzzles before, I'm not saying I don't believe you.
But you have to prove it through games.
For example, I can not prove my rating through games because I barely play any.
Would you expect a 1600 to have a 3000 rating? No? Then you need to play games. A lot of them. Get your rating to match.
@helloworld_1064
You might as well do the following:
Do puzzles honestly until you're back at where you started. This might give you an idea of how hard these puzzles REALLY are. Then your rating will come back. And then stop cheating at puzzles.
Also chesscom puzzles are made in a way that you can arbitrarily inflate your rating if you play enough puzzles, if it wasn't clear enough. Whereas lichess puzzle ratings are designed as "duels" between the player (who has a rating) and the puzzle (which also has a rating)
You might as well do the following:
Do puzzles honestly until you're back at where you started. This might give you an idea of how hard these puzzles REALLY are. Then your rating will come back. And then stop cheating at puzzles.
Also chesscom puzzles are made in a way that you can arbitrarily inflate your rating if you play enough puzzles, if it wasn't clear enough. Whereas lichess puzzle ratings are designed as "duels" between the player (who has a rating) and the puzzle (which also has a rating)
When you discover stockfish this happens
@Cedur216 said in #10:
> Tell the marines
> Tell the marines
@Cedur216 said in #53:
> @helloworld_1064
> Also chesscom puzzles are made in a way that you can arbitrarily inflate your rating if you play enough puzzles, if it wasn't clear enough. Whereas lichess puzzle ratings are designed as "duels" between the player (who has a rating) and the puzzle (which also has a rating)
@Cedur216 , Wrong, on chess.com too there are player's rating and puzzle rating. Also, the highest puzzle I have ever solved is 3390, so it makes sense to have such high rating on lichess too
> @helloworld_1064
> Also chesscom puzzles are made in a way that you can arbitrarily inflate your rating if you play enough puzzles, if it wasn't clear enough. Whereas lichess puzzle ratings are designed as "duels" between the player (who has a rating) and the puzzle (which also has a rating)
@Cedur216 , Wrong, on chess.com too there are player's rating and puzzle rating. Also, the highest puzzle I have ever solved is 3390, so it makes sense to have such high rating on lichess too
> Wrong, on chess.com too there are player's rating and puzzle rating
I haven't claimed this wasn't the case.
> Also, the highest puzzle I have ever solved is 3390, so it makes sense to have such high rating on lichess too
NO, you can't compare the sites, that's an awful excuse for cheating (if there are any good excuses in the first place)
I haven't claimed this wasn't the case.
> Also, the highest puzzle I have ever solved is 3390, so it makes sense to have such high rating on lichess too
NO, you can't compare the sites, that's an awful excuse for cheating (if there are any good excuses in the first place)
So, I just have to play games, Right?
if you don't care that your Lichess puzzle rating is fake and that other people can see it's fake, then yes
@helloworld_1064 said in #56:
> @Cedur216 , Wrong, on chess.com too there are player's rating and puzzle rating. Also, the highest puzzle I have ever solved is 3390, so it makes sense to have such high rating on lichess too
Not sure if it makes sense or not, but such high rated puzzles simply do not seem to exist on Lichess. On Chess.com the puzzles which ended my best "Puzzle Rush Survival" runs were rated over 3700, and Hikaru Nakamura solved puzzles up to at least 3900. But I have not found any such puzzles here.
Yesterday I tried the "Hard" and "Hardest" settings which are supposed to give me puzzles 300 or 600 points above my rating, respectively. What I got instead were the same ~2900 puzzles as with normal settings.
In the light of this experience I also tried to interpret your May 16 results where you scored 16 wins and 34 losses, yet gained another 29 rating points, boosting your puzzle rating to 3155. I have not done the math exactly, but as a rough estimation the average puzzle rating on that day should have been around 3300 for these numbers to match up.
Since apparently not enough 3300 rated puzzles exist (I may have gotten a few, but certainly far less than 50), the only explanation I could come up with is that you switched a good part of your failed puzzles to "Unrated" before guessing the solution. This is not as bad as using an engine, but selective solving is still a form of self-deception which IMO is best avoided.
> @Cedur216 , Wrong, on chess.com too there are player's rating and puzzle rating. Also, the highest puzzle I have ever solved is 3390, so it makes sense to have such high rating on lichess too
Not sure if it makes sense or not, but such high rated puzzles simply do not seem to exist on Lichess. On Chess.com the puzzles which ended my best "Puzzle Rush Survival" runs were rated over 3700, and Hikaru Nakamura solved puzzles up to at least 3900. But I have not found any such puzzles here.
Yesterday I tried the "Hard" and "Hardest" settings which are supposed to give me puzzles 300 or 600 points above my rating, respectively. What I got instead were the same ~2900 puzzles as with normal settings.
In the light of this experience I also tried to interpret your May 16 results where you scored 16 wins and 34 losses, yet gained another 29 rating points, boosting your puzzle rating to 3155. I have not done the math exactly, but as a rough estimation the average puzzle rating on that day should have been around 3300 for these numbers to match up.
Since apparently not enough 3300 rated puzzles exist (I may have gotten a few, but certainly far less than 50), the only explanation I could come up with is that you switched a good part of your failed puzzles to "Unrated" before guessing the solution. This is not as bad as using an engine, but selective solving is still a form of self-deception which IMO is best avoided.