It's HIGH TIME For A Classical Rating

DeirdreSkye
JamesAgadir wrote:

Is it really a problem that classic and rapid get bunched together in one name ? Does it really matter ?

   If you understand the difference it matters.

JamesAgadir
DeirdreSkye a écrit :
JamesAgadir wrote:

Is it really a problem that classic and rapid get bunched together in one name ? Does it really matter ?

   If you understand the difference it matters.

I understand the difference and still don't see why it matters. You could just play classical chess and pretend that that's the name of the rating system.

DeirdreSkye
JamesAgadir wrote:
DeirdreSkye a écrit :
JamesAgadir wrote:

Is it really a problem that classic and rapid get bunched together in one name ? Does it really matter ?

   If you understand the difference it matters.

I understand the difference and still don't see why it matters. You could just play classical chess and pretend that that's the name of the rating system.

   When you acuire a classical rating playing with people that have acuired this rating by playing rapid games then it's not really classical rating. You will win people that have let's say , 1900 rating in classical acuired from rapid games and they might not even know how to handle their time properly in longer time control games.One might acuire a good classical rating by playing players that have a good classical rating although they are  untrained and inexperienced in classical time controls.Does that make sense to you?

     The ones that like classical time controls are the ones that appreciate good games and they want their rating and their opponent's rating to reflect , as much as possible , their actual skill.  100 points rating + or - in blitz means nothing.In Classical chess means a lot.

     

Polar_Bear
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Polar_Bear wrote:

The answer is simple: online chess site is inappropriate place for classic tempo.
You can have blitz, rapid or correspondence, but classic chess with games lasting 3-6 hours brings an unpleasant dealing with game abandonments. You are winning, opponent simply stops moving (but doesn't resign or disconnect), and you have to remain online and maintain connection for 1-2 hours in dead game until he moves or gets flagged. Without online cam, you cannot be sure what he is doing, he may be thinking legitimately. He wastes your time while surfing, chatting, watching porn etc.

    All these don't matter .Eventually we would all find some players to play against.

    Lichess has a long time control league(it's 45/45 and they are thinking of starting a 90/30 too) that is already on the 5th year and is doing just fine.The only complain expressed by some of the lower rated players is that sometimes the opponents are too strong(which is actually a good thing for lower rated players).If a site wants there are ways to do it.Many ways!

So, you are left with:

1) Playing only friends (whitelist)

2) Creating noplay list (blacklist)

I don't know the Lichess site, but open league in classic chess without entry barrier wouldn't work here, since the community isn't cultivated enough. And cultivation isn't even possible, because known trolls, cheaters and abusers are coming back with new anonymous accounts.

JamesAgadir
DeirdreSkye a écrit :
JamesAgadir wrote:
DeirdreSkye a écrit :
JamesAgadir wrote:

Is it really a problem that classic and rapid get bunched together in one name ? Does it really matter ?

   If you understand the difference it matters.

I understand the difference and still don't see why it matters. You could just play classical chess and pretend that that's the name of the rating system.

   When you acuire a classical rating playing with people that have acuired this rating by playing rapid games then it's not really classical rating. You will win people that have let's say , 1900 rating in classical acuired from rapid games and they might not even know how to handle their time properly in longer time control games.One might acuire a good classical rating by playing players that have a good classical rating although they are  untrained and inexperienced in classical time controls.Does that make sense to you?

     The ones that like classical time controls are the ones that appreciate good games and they want their rating and their opponent's rating to reflect , as much as possible , their actual skill.  100 points rating + or - in blitz means nothing.In Classical chess means a lot.

     

I guess I understand but I don't think it will change your classical rating a lot so it doesn't matter that much. Also players who get their rating only based on rapid will by definition rarely play classical.

DeirdreSkye
JamesAgadir wrote:
DeirdreSkye a écrit :
JamesAgadir wrote:
DeirdreSkye a écrit :
JamesAgadir wrote:

Is it really a problem that classic and rapid get bunched together in one name ? Does it really matter ?

   If you understand the difference it matters.

I understand the difference and still don't see why it matters. You could just play classical chess and pretend that that's the name of the rating system.

   When you acuire a classical rating playing with people that have acuired this rating by playing rapid games then it's not really classical rating. You will win people that have let's say , 1900 rating in classical acuired from rapid games and they might not even know how to handle their time properly in longer time control games.One might acuire a good classical rating by playing players that have a good classical rating although they are  untrained and inexperienced in classical time controls.Does that make sense to you?

     The ones that like classical time controls are the ones that appreciate good games and they want their rating and their opponent's rating to reflect , as much as possible , their actual skill.  100 points rating + or - in blitz means nothing.In Classical chess means a lot.

     

I don't think it will change your classical rating a lot so it doesn't matter that much.

   That is your opinion and might not reflect everybody's opinion.

If blitz and rapid have different ratings then rapid and classical must have different ratings too.

   Otherwise why daily chess must have it's own and not the same with rapid too?

    Time control changes the game dramatically.Rapid and Classical are 2 very different games.It makes no sense to have the same rating Just like it makes no sense bullet and rapid to have the same rating.One is tic tac toe and the other needs some thinking.

dk-Ltd
CoffeeAnd420 wrote:

You have bullet, blitz, and rapid ratings. Why on earth would you exclude the one rating that is universally most important? Obviously, it's beyond laughable to have a chess site and not have a classical/standard rating system. Other sites have this and in fact, they've increased the time the game needs to be (25+ min on both sides, minimum) to be considered classical. The trend these days is people looking for longer games online and off. Please reflect this on the site here and stop catering the absolute most casual chess players on the face of the earth.

 

There are quite a few of us who would be willing to pay for the site if you focused on things that were centered around serious, competitive chess.

Have asked for this many many times, but it is clearly not a direction this site wants to take. Actually, seems like they hate slower time controls (apart from daily) and all development is focused on speed chess and how to make it even more popular. I can understand them, but it wouldn't heart to throw us (players that like slower games) a bone from time to time tongue.png.

 

What I hated the most was, when before some months they transformed the tactics trainer to bullet trainer, rewarding almost exclusively speed over correctness (when used to be kind of both). Of course, I stopped using it.

DamonevicSmithlov

Maybe we should just act spoiled and riot over it. 

dk-Ltd
DamonevicSmithlov wrote:

Maybe we should just act spoiled and riot over it. 

go on, we will watch

DamonevicSmithlov

I was hoping someone else would go first. I just wanted to watch and see how it went.

DeirdreSkye
DamonevicSmithlov wrote:

I was hoping someone else would go first. I just wanted to watch and see how it went.

  Yea , that's the problem with riots , everybody wants to watch! That is why they rarely happen and when they do they are for the wrong reasons(most of the times).

MitchFabian

I fully support the idea of a classical rating on chess.com. It would really incentivize people to play those longer time controls. I dislike Blitz (I play in mostly G90+ tournaments), and it doesn't help me as much as playing longer control games. I get away with too much in Blitz games that I wouldn't get away with in classical, which actually hurts my tournament play.

ScootaChess

As a fan of classical chess, I agree. Despite all the blitz I play i do think classical is a bit underrepresented here

BobbyTalparov
DeirdreSkye wrote:

    Lichess has a long time control league(it's 45/45 and they are thinking of starting a 90/30 too) that is already on the 5th year and is doing just fine.The only complain expressed by some of the lower rated players is that sometimes the opponents are too strong(which is actually a good thing for lower rated players).If a site wants there are ways to do it.Many ways!

The same Slow Chess League exists here (as well as on ICC).

CoffeeAnd420
superchessmachine wrote:

I am so surprised how long this forum has lasted

 

This is a thread on a forum, son. Further, in this world, it's best to explain why you feel a certain way and not just make an empty statement. This isn't high school or college. It's reality. You can't just sit back, do nothing, and pretend you know something the rest of us don't. That only works in the American education system.

D2-D2

if chess.com makes a mcChess website the customers will or will not play on this site and chesscom will make less $ and will switch. it's called capitalism