Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

How are opponents matched based on rating in Lichess Arena tournaments?

@Benyam_Alem said ^

Nope......my first games in arena are always eith a 2100 or 2300 rated player.....total letdown.....and im 1500-1600 most of the time

That's not possible. That can only happen if you late join. If the tournament is already started then the rating-based pairing has already happened and you don't benefit of it anymore.

@Benyam_Alem said [^](/forum/redirect/post/mZ4x9u4m) > Nope......my first games in arena are always eith a 2100 or 2300 rated player.....total letdown.....and im 1500-1600 most of the time That's not possible. That can only happen if you late join. If the tournament is already started then the rating-based pairing has already happened and you don't benefit of it anymore.

@Inventor_1 said ^

No. Absolutely wrong. I gave an example above. In that example, we both have 4 points. In the example, I have 2324, and my opponent has 2280, so we get the points. And the players with 1500 and 1550 get them. I have 2324 and my opponent has 2280, and we have an expected score of 10:0 against those 1500 and 1550, but we're forced to play each other. And then the colossally weaker opponents will play each other for points (for example, also 0 and 2).

This logic is incredibly flawed and is very strange you don't easily realize it yourself.

You're saying that a 2300 vs 2300 is unfair compared to a 1500 vs 1500. But that 1500 to the other 1500 is like the 2300 to you. It's not like the 1500 is facing an 800 and you're stuck with the 2300.
If you want to be consistently paired with weaker opponents then also the 1500 must be consistently paired with weaker opponents, otherwise there's a gross imbalance.

This is precisely a punishment for the stronger players for their ability to play better, and a reward for the weaker ones.

If this was true we would see floods of weaker players consistently win lots of open tournaments. We don't see this, do we?

For example, they simply play from a new account with a starting rating of 1500.

Most arenas on lichess have a min number of games played as a requirement to join so you can't join being 1500? with zero games.

Or even set their starting rating below 1500.

This is not chesscom, you can't set your own rating at your likes.

I've already seen a bunch of them who start a tournament with a rating of about 1500 and finish with a rating of about 2500, taking, for example, first place.

It can be for a multitude of reasons, but as you mention later when sandbagging happens the player gets banned.

A rating-based system like chesscom's actually favors and encourages sandbaggers, as they will be paired with weaker opponents until their rating reflects their real ability.

It is also very unclear what you want, as you don't like rating-based and you don't like ranking-based. So how would you pair players?

@Inventor_1 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/KMqc8Iwo) > No. Absolutely wrong. I gave an example above. In that example, we both have 4 points. In the example, I have 2324, and my opponent has 2280, so we get the points. And the players with 1500 and 1550 get them. I have 2324 and my opponent has 2280, and we have an expected score of 10:0 against those 1500 and 1550, but we're forced to play each other. And then the colossally weaker opponents will play each other for points (for example, also 0 and 2). This logic is incredibly flawed and is very strange you don't easily realize it yourself. You're saying that a 2300 vs 2300 is unfair compared to a 1500 vs 1500. But that 1500 to the other 1500 is like the 2300 to you. It's not like the 1500 is facing an 800 and you're stuck with the 2300. If you want to be consistently paired with weaker opponents then also the 1500 must be consistently paired with weaker opponents, otherwise there's a gross imbalance. > This is precisely a punishment for the stronger players for their ability to play better, and a reward for the weaker ones. If this was true we would see floods of weaker players consistently win lots of open tournaments. We don't see this, do we? > For example, they simply play from a new account with a starting rating of 1500. Most arenas on lichess have a min number of games played as a requirement to join so you can't join being 1500? with zero games. > Or even set their starting rating below 1500. This is not chesscom, you can't set your own rating at your likes. > I've already seen a bunch of them who start a tournament with a rating of about 1500 and finish with a rating of about 2500, taking, for example, first place. It can be for a multitude of reasons, but as you mention later when sandbagging happens the player gets banned. A rating-based system like chesscom's actually favors and encourages sandbaggers, as they will be paired with weaker opponents until their rating reflects their real ability. It is also very unclear what you want, as you don't like rating-based and you don't like ranking-based. So how would you pair players?

@IamNOTamod said ^

"Why is it fair that I get a very strong opponent, while a weak opponent gets a very weak opponent (whom I can beat roughly 10-0)"

If you are a strong player (which you appear to be) then it is indeed fair you play against equally strong opponents.

"They play in these tournaments with deliberately very low ratings. For example, a person plays in real life at 2100, but plays in these tournaments with a rating lowered to 1900-2000"

Such accounts WILL be caught, even if they are "not too brazen".

Your example: "For example, like this. A tournament. I have a rating of 2324. I get opponents with ratings of 2300, 2250, 2350, 2280, 2150, 2400, and so on throughout the tournament. And my competitor with a rating of 1500 gets opponents with ratings of: 1500, 1550, 1450, 1620, 1350, 1700, and so on throughout the tournament. And as a result, he scores slightly more points than me and takes a higher place"

is unlikely. Remember, that pairings are point-based before taking ratings into account. The 1500 will eventually start playing higher rated (2000+) players and start losing more often. Such examples are evident in Lichess Marathons (check the recent one).

And I did not downvote your posts.

No, very many accounts like this go unnoticed. I've personally seen accounts that have been playing like this for several years, and no one has banned them. They don't get brazen, so it's not obvious unless you carefully study their statistics.
Here on Lichess, to get banned for cheating, you have to be a truly brazen cheater or a very poorly skilled chess player. I've banned countless cheaters on Lichess based on my reports (with detailed justifications), and Lichess has thanked me many, many times for these reports, which led to the bans. But about the same number of my reports failed to convince Lichess, and the cheaters weren't banned based on them. Some of those cheaters were later banned. And some are still playing, and no one has banned them. And I was most likely right about all or almost all of those about whom I wrote reports with justifications. No, this actually happens regularly, and quite a bit. I've personally encountered this situation regularly. For example, I'm ahead of a player in a tournament by 1 point, with a rating about 250 points lower than mine. He's ranked slightly higher. I look at his performance and mine. I see that my performance is about 200 points higher than his. I played a much better tournament than he did. I played better by about 200 rating points. But he scored more points, and he finished higher. And if the tournament has cash prizes, or if it's a team tournament with cash prizes within the team for results, then the difference also lies in who gets how much money, or who gets money and who doesn't (the money is small, but real).
You gave a dislike, I saw the dislike. And then I removed it. And now you're getting another dislike. Partly for the meaning – for mistakes in the comment. And partly because you deliberately wrote your comment that way so I wouldn't see it, even though it was in the thread. It's really bad to do that. You deliberately broke the accepted form of replying to a comment and simply replied to me in the thread. It's like you responded to me, but I have nothing to say back, so I shut up. That won't happen, don't even hope.

@IamNOTamod said [^](/forum/redirect/post/xwaBHsAq) > "Why is it fair that I get a very strong opponent, while a weak opponent gets a very weak opponent (whom I can beat roughly 10-0)" > > If you are a strong player (which you appear to be) then it is indeed fair you play against equally strong opponents. > > > "They play in these tournaments with deliberately very low ratings. For example, a person plays in real life at 2100, but plays in these tournaments with a rating lowered to 1900-2000" > > Such accounts WILL be caught, even if they are "not too brazen". > > Your example: "For example, like this. A tournament. I have a rating of 2324. I get opponents with ratings of 2300, 2250, 2350, 2280, 2150, 2400, and so on throughout the tournament. And my competitor with a rating of 1500 gets opponents with ratings of: 1500, 1550, 1450, 1620, 1350, 1700, and so on throughout the tournament. And as a result, he scores slightly more points than me and takes a higher place" > > is unlikely. Remember, that pairings are point-based before taking ratings into account. The 1500 will eventually start playing higher rated (2000+) players and start losing more often. Such examples are evident in Lichess Marathons (check the recent one). > > > ----- > > > And I did not downvote your posts. No, very many accounts like this go unnoticed. I've personally seen accounts that have been playing like this for several years, and no one has banned them. They don't get brazen, so it's not obvious unless you carefully study their statistics. Here on Lichess, to get banned for cheating, you have to be a truly brazen cheater or a very poorly skilled chess player. I've banned countless cheaters on Lichess based on my reports (with detailed justifications), and Lichess has thanked me many, many times for these reports, which led to the bans. But about the same number of my reports failed to convince Lichess, and the cheaters weren't banned based on them. Some of those cheaters were later banned. And some are still playing, and no one has banned them. And I was most likely right about all or almost all of those about whom I wrote reports with justifications. No, this actually happens regularly, and quite a bit. I've personally encountered this situation regularly. For example, I'm ahead of a player in a tournament by 1 point, with a rating about 250 points lower than mine. He's ranked slightly higher. I look at his performance and mine. I see that my performance is about 200 points higher than his. I played a much better tournament than he did. I played better by about 200 rating points. But he scored more points, and he finished higher. And if the tournament has cash prizes, or if it's a team tournament with cash prizes within the team for results, then the difference also lies in who gets how much money, or who gets money and who doesn't (the money is small, but real). You gave a dislike, I saw the dislike. And then I removed it. And now you're getting another dislike. Partly for the meaning – for mistakes in the comment. And partly because you deliberately wrote your comment that way so I wouldn't see it, even though it was in the thread. It's really bad to do that. You deliberately broke the accepted form of replying to a comment and simply replied to me in the thread. It's like you responded to me, but I have nothing to say back, so I shut up. That won't happen, don't even hope.

@IamNOTamod said ^

"Why is it fair that I get a very strong opponent, while a weak opponent gets a very weak opponent (whom I can beat roughly 10-0)"

If you are a strong player (which you appear to be) then it is indeed fair you play against equally strong opponents.

"They play in these tournaments with deliberately very low ratings. For example, a person plays in real life at 2100, but plays in these tournaments with a rating lowered to 1900-2000"

Such accounts WILL be caught, even if they are "not too brazen".

Your example: "For example, like this. A tournament. I have a rating of 2324. I get opponents with ratings of 2300, 2250, 2350, 2280, 2150, 2400, and so on throughout the tournament. And my competitor with a rating of 1500 gets opponents with ratings of: 1500, 1550, 1450, 1620, 1350, 1700, and so on throughout the tournament. And as a result, he scores slightly more points than me and takes a higher place"

is unlikely. Remember, that pairings are point-based before taking ratings into account. The 1500 will eventually start playing higher rated (2000+) players and start losing more often. Such examples are evident in Lichess Marathons (check the recent one).

And I did not downvote your posts.

This system is absurd. Clearly, it was designed to attract weaker players. But that doesn't make it any less absurd. Because it contradicts the very idea of sporting competition. I've explained it in detail more than once above. Read there. The only way to resist is by deliberately resisting for some reason. Do you imagine yourself as Lichess's lawyer? Don't you have anything better to do with your life? Did you think, "Oh, someone's criticizing something about the Lichess system, I need to rush to defend it immediately, because there can't be anything less than perfect on Lichess"? Hey! No one is dissing Lichess here. What's being said here is that this particular thing on Lichess is flawed, absurd. And you've also been told more than once that this isn't the topic of this thread. For some reason, you've turned the thread into something completely different from what it was intended to be. I needed to know the algorithm, not discuss your off-topic reasoning with you. You've wasted both your time and mine. Don't post here anymore off-topic content. The topic is about the calculation algorithm. If you don't know the exact algorithm, don't post anything here. If you do, just post it here, and that's it. And all your speculations about whether the system is absurd or not—don't post here at all. That's not what this topic is about. I've told you that many times already.

@IamNOTamod said [^](/forum/redirect/post/xwaBHsAq) > "Why is it fair that I get a very strong opponent, while a weak opponent gets a very weak opponent (whom I can beat roughly 10-0)" > > If you are a strong player (which you appear to be) then it is indeed fair you play against equally strong opponents. > > > "They play in these tournaments with deliberately very low ratings. For example, a person plays in real life at 2100, but plays in these tournaments with a rating lowered to 1900-2000" > > Such accounts WILL be caught, even if they are "not too brazen". > > Your example: "For example, like this. A tournament. I have a rating of 2324. I get opponents with ratings of 2300, 2250, 2350, 2280, 2150, 2400, and so on throughout the tournament. And my competitor with a rating of 1500 gets opponents with ratings of: 1500, 1550, 1450, 1620, 1350, 1700, and so on throughout the tournament. And as a result, he scores slightly more points than me and takes a higher place" > > is unlikely. Remember, that pairings are point-based before taking ratings into account. The 1500 will eventually start playing higher rated (2000+) players and start losing more often. Such examples are evident in Lichess Marathons (check the recent one). > > > ----- > > > And I did not downvote your posts. This system is absurd. Clearly, it was designed to attract weaker players. But that doesn't make it any less absurd. Because it contradicts the very idea of sporting competition. I've explained it in detail more than once above. Read there. The only way to resist is by deliberately resisting for some reason. Do you imagine yourself as Lichess's lawyer? Don't you have anything better to do with your life? Did you think, "Oh, someone's criticizing something about the Lichess system, I need to rush to defend it immediately, because there can't be anything less than perfect on Lichess"? Hey! No one is dissing Lichess here. What's being said here is that this particular thing on Lichess is flawed, absurd. And you've also been told more than once that this isn't the topic of this thread. For some reason, you've turned the thread into something completely different from what it was intended to be. I needed to know the algorithm, not discuss your off-topic reasoning with you. You've wasted both your time and mine. Don't post here anymore off-topic content. The topic is about the calculation algorithm. If you don't know the exact algorithm, don't post anything here. If you do, just post it here, and that's it. And all your speculations about whether the system is absurd or not—don't post here at all. That's not what this topic is about. I've told you that many times already.

@Deadban

No. You're making mistake after mistake. And it's completely off-topic. Don't tell me a word of your off-topic reasoning. This thread is only about "what specific algorithm is this? That's a question only for those who know for sure (and not just making up your own fantasies)." It's not about whether it's absurd or not. And only for those who know for sure. I wrote about all of that in my original comment. And you've just given me your fantasies, 100% wrong. It's better not to write anything else in this thread. You don't know the answer to the question, and you're just wasting my time and yours.
And I'll just briefly address the most glaring errors in your words. No, the system doesn't match up with just any opponent. It matches opponents from those with relatively close points. I've personally seen this many times. The system never matched me with any players who were significantly behind me in points. And I saw the same thing in other people's games in those tournaments. They give opponents over a fairly wide range of points, BUT NOT 100% ANY!
And no, it's absolutely unfair to give opponents with vastly different difficulty levels, punishing those who are both honest and play well. This, by the way, is easily circumvented by those who are dishonest but want to score more points and place higher. I've personally seen many accounts here on Lichess who, for years on end, play in such a way as to lower their ratings before important arena tournaments in order to score more points. It's for status or even money (in tournaments with cash prizes, in team tournaments with cash prizes within the team). They lower their ratings, for example, in hourly tournaments. Then, in an important tournament, their rating rises, but they score a lot of points, lower their ratings again in hourly tournaments, and so on for years. They play like this here for years, and no one has banned them. Why it's unfair is explained in detail in my other comments in this thread.
It's best not to write anything else to me here.

@Deadban No. You're making mistake after mistake. And it's completely off-topic. Don't tell me a word of your off-topic reasoning. This thread is only about "what specific algorithm is this? That's a question only for those who know for sure (and not just making up your own fantasies)." It's not about whether it's absurd or not. And only for those who know for sure. I wrote about all of that in my original comment. And you've just given me your fantasies, 100% wrong. It's better not to write anything else in this thread. You don't know the answer to the question, and you're just wasting my time and yours. And I'll just briefly address the most glaring errors in your words. No, the system doesn't match up with just any opponent. It matches opponents from those with relatively close points. I've personally seen this many times. The system never matched me with any players who were significantly behind me in points. And I saw the same thing in other people's games in those tournaments. They give opponents over a fairly wide range of points, BUT NOT 100% ANY! And no, it's absolutely unfair to give opponents with vastly different difficulty levels, punishing those who are both honest and play well. This, by the way, is easily circumvented by those who are dishonest but want to score more points and place higher. I've personally seen many accounts here on Lichess who, for years on end, play in such a way as to lower their ratings before important arena tournaments in order to score more points. It's for status or even money (in tournaments with cash prizes, in team tournaments with cash prizes within the team). They lower their ratings, for example, in hourly tournaments. Then, in an important tournament, their rating rises, but they score a lot of points, lower their ratings again in hourly tournaments, and so on for years. They play like this here for years, and no one has banned them. Why it's unfair is explained in detail in my other comments in this thread. It's best not to write anything else to me here.

"No, very many accounts like this go unnoticed. I've personally seen accounts that have been playing like this for several years, and no one has banned them"

So you are a better judge than the system?

"Clearly, the system was designed to attract weaker players"

Statement based on assumption; no evidence to support.

"I've explained it in detail more than once above. Read there. The only way to resist is by deliberately resisting for some reason"

And I have explained in detail why you are wrong more than once. Read my above posts. You are ignoring them and accusing me of ignoring your posts, quite ironically.

"Don't you have anything better to do with your life"

Verbal abuse again? Seriously?

"And you've also been told more than once that this isn't the topic of this thread. For some reason, you've turned the thread into something completely different from what it was intended to be. I needed to know the algorithm, not discuss your off-topic reasoning with you"

Something must be wrong with your memory, because you started this mini-debate, not me.

"And all your speculations about whether the system is absurd or not—don't post here at all."

You started posting about its "absurdity" first.

"You've wasted your time"

Then I no longer shall. Don't bother replying -- it's a waste of your time, apparently, and I will no longer respond to @[mentions] in this thread.

And you can claim I downvoted your posts how many times you like. It does not change the fact I never did.

Goodbye.

"No, very many accounts like this go unnoticed. I've personally seen accounts that have been playing like this for several years, and no one has banned them" So you are a better judge than the system? ----- "Clearly, the system was designed to attract weaker players" Statement based on assumption; no evidence to support. "I've explained it in detail more than once above. Read there. The only way to resist is by deliberately resisting for some reason" And I have explained in detail why you are wrong more than once. Read my above posts. You are ignoring them and accusing me of ignoring your posts, quite ironically. "Don't you have anything better to do with your life" Verbal abuse again? Seriously? "And you've also been told more than once that this isn't the topic of this thread. For some reason, you've turned the thread into something completely different from what it was intended to be. I needed to know the algorithm, not discuss your off-topic reasoning with you" Something must be wrong with your memory, because you started this mini-debate, not me. "And all your speculations about whether the system is absurd or not—don't post here at all." You started posting about its "absurdity" first. "You've wasted your time" Then I no longer shall. Don't bother replying -- it's a waste of your time, apparently, and I will no longer respond to @[mentions] in this thread. ----- And you can claim I downvoted your posts how many times you like. It does not change the fact I never did. Goodbye.

@IamNOTamod

No, you're writing so many incorrect things again. This time I won't even refute you; I've already refuted so many of your words that you've reached your limit of conversation. And so that you'll finally stop writing me completely off-topic messages here and wasting both my and your time, I'll just say: GOODBYE! DON'T WRITE ME OFF-TOPOTICE HERE ANY MORE (while you've been writing off-topic messages, this isn't the topic, I've already said it several times)!

@IamNOTamod No, you're writing so many incorrect things again. This time I won't even refute you; I've already refuted so many of your words that you've reached your limit of conversation. And so that you'll finally stop writing me completely off-topic messages here and wasting both my and your time, I'll just say: GOODBYE! DON'T WRITE ME OFF-TOPOTICE HERE ANY MORE (while you've been writing off-topic messages, this isn't the topic, I've already said it several times)!

MODERATORS! CLOSE THIS TOPIC! I created it to get specific answers to specific questions (I wrote all about this in detail in my original comment). Instead, everyone here is simply wasting my time and theirs with off-topic rants. Therefore, I no longer expect to get specific answers to the specific questions I created this thread for. And I don't want to waste any more time (and I suspect that if I don't close this thread, I'll only get more and more off-topic rants, completely different from what I created it for).

MODERATORS! CLOSE THIS TOPIC! I created it to get specific answers to specific questions (I wrote all about this in detail in my original comment). Instead, everyone here is simply wasting my time and theirs with off-topic rants. Therefore, I no longer expect to get specific answers to the specific questions I created this thread for. And I don't want to waste any more time (and I suspect that if I don't close this thread, I'll only get more and more off-topic rants, completely different from what I created it for).

What's the point of your comment? I know that without you. You haven't told me anything new on this topic, but you've wasted my time replying to your comments. I'm not interested in just talking. That's not why I started this thread. I needed specific answers to my specific questions. If there are no answers, don't write anything here.

Nobody is obliged to tell you 'new' things. It is not them who wasted your time. If you chose to make a double edged comment on someone, you need to be accountable for that. So yeah, you wasted your time.

That's just saying what I wrote in other words: that comment was a guesswork based on observation, without knowledge of the actual pairing algorithm.

The OP's point is half true and half false.

Google Translate translated your comment into my language as an erroneous, rude assertion about my words, as if you thought I said something incorrectly.

Then it's time to change your translator because you are running into misunderstandings.

I created this thread so that someone who knows the exact algorithm (an insider at Lichess) could write it down for us. That's all. Instead, all I get here is unnecessary information that's off topic. Lichess insiders, just write: this is how this thing works! That's all.

I suggest that you should have posted this in 'Feedback' section instead of off-topic.

What's fair with your scenario? Absolutely nothing! Why is it fair that I get a very strong opponent, while a weak opponent gets a very weak opponent (whom I can beat roughly 10-0)?

Buccholz are a factor. You should post this in feedback forum to get a real answer.

So you are a better judge than the system?

This thing is inappropriate to say by (@)IamNOTamod

>What's the point of your comment? I know that without you. You haven't told me anything new on this topic, but you've wasted my time replying to your comments. I'm not interested in just talking. That's not why I started this thread. I needed specific answers to my specific questions. If there are no answers, don't write anything here. Nobody is obliged to tell you 'new' things. It is not them who wasted your time. If you chose to make a double edged comment on someone, you need to be accountable for that. So yeah, you wasted your time. >That's just saying what I wrote in other words: that comment was a guesswork based on observation, without knowledge of the actual pairing algorithm. The OP's point is half true and half false. >Google Translate translated your comment into my language as an erroneous, rude assertion about my words, as if you thought I said something incorrectly. Then it's time to change your translator because you are running into misunderstandings. >I created this thread so that someone who knows the exact algorithm (an insider at Lichess) could write it down for us. That's all. Instead, all I get here is unnecessary information that's off topic. Lichess insiders, just write: this is how this thing works! That's all. I suggest that you should have posted this in 'Feedback' section instead of off-topic. >What's fair with your scenario? Absolutely nothing! Why is it fair that I get a very strong opponent, while a weak opponent gets a very weak opponent (whom I can beat roughly 10-0)? Buccholz are a factor. You should post this in feedback forum to get a real answer. >So you are a better judge than the system? This thing is inappropriate to say by (@)IamNOTamod

@TheMagnusAura said ^

What's the point of your comment? I know that without you. You haven't told me anything new on this topic, but you've wasted my time replying to your comments. I'm not interested in just talking. That's not why I started this thread. I needed specific answers to my specific questions. If there are no answers, don't write anything here.

Nobody is obliged to tell you 'new' things. It is not them who wasted your time. If you chose to make a double edged comment on someone, you need to be accountable for that. So yeah, you wasted your time.

That's just saying what I wrote in other words: that comment was a guesswork based on observation, without knowledge of the actual pairing algorithm.

The OP's point is half true and half false.

Google Translate translated your comment into my language as an erroneous, rude assertion about my words, as if you thought I said something incorrectly.

Then it's time to change your translator because you are running into misunderstandings.

I created this thread so that someone who knows the exact algorithm (an insider at Lichess) could write it down for us. That's all. Instead, all I get here is unnecessary information that's off topic. Lichess insiders, just write: this is how this thing works! That's all.

I suggest that you should have posted this in 'Feedback' section instead of off-topic.

What's fair with your scenario? Absolutely nothing! Why is it fair that I get a very strong opponent, while a weak opponent gets a very weak opponent (whom I can beat roughly 10-0)?

Buccholz are a factor. You should post this in feedback forum to get a real answer.

So you are a better judge than the system?

This thing is inappropriate to say by (@)IamNOTamod

No one is obligated to tell me anything; anyone could have simply passed by. Especially considering that I had anticipated everything correctly in the original text, stating that I was seeking information from those who knew for sure. And if they wanted to make assumptions, then let them start with that. I clearly wrote that I was looking for specific answers to specific questions. Ultimately, I received nothing of what the thread was intended to achieve. All I got was off-topic speculation and fantasy.
No. The author's words are 100% correct. The author says:

  • this is true 100% - and it turns out to be true 100%;
  • I don't know how this is 100% for sure, but I assume that this is true; because that's how it's usually done; but I have no information on how it's done here specifically; because what's done here is what they decided to do arbitrarily, at their own discretion, and not in some generally accepted way.
    With this formulation, the author's statement is 100% correct. If you're trying to nitpick the words, you're wasting your time. Google Translate translates words back and forth. It also translates your words in such a way that many of them read to me as very awkward and erroneous, but I understand that in most cases, you didn't mean to write this awkward and erroneous phrase, but something else. But the translator translated your words as these awkward and erroneous phrases. And from there, I'm trying to guess what you meant, assuming you had something much more correct in mind.
    And by the way, knowledge of English isn't considered essential or valuable in my country. Millions of people from many, many neighboring countries study the language of my country in schools so that they can come to my country and speak my native language with me and others.

No. From what I've heard, all translators translate relatively poorly, roughly like this.

No. I've never posted this topic in the Off-Topic Discussion section. I posted it in the General Chess Discussion section, and then a moderator moved it to Lichess Feedback. It wasn't posted in the Off-Topic Discussion section by either me or the moderators. What you're writing wasn't there at all. You've got something mixed up.
No. The topic is where the moderator put it. As you can see, your advice is far from perfect. Even this particular one is worth considering. Either you or the moderator made a mistake about whether the topic is in the right place or not. Let me remind you that I never posted this topic in the Off-Topic Discussion section.
A knowledgeable person could write the algorithm in a single comment. Instead, there are already about 50 comments in the thread and not a single proper answer. I myself, before creating the topic, had a near-100% probability that Buchholz was one of the factors. And aren't we on this forum now? We are, I think. We're on Lichess Feedback. In any case, it was the moderator who put the topic here. Are you criticizing the moderator's actions if you're criticizing them? Or maybe you're mistaken.
Yes, in that matter (the one he was asking about), I'm a better judge than the system. The system banned many cheaters based on my reports, with detailed justifications (and it thanked me for them many times). And it didn't ban some cheaters based on my reports, and then it banned them. So, I knew for a long time that they were cheaters, I sent the system reports about them (that they were cheaters), and the system mistakenly didn't ban them. Then some time passed (say, several months), and the system banned them. I immediately realized they were cheaters and told the system so. At first, the system couldn't find them, then it disagreed with me that they were cheaters. The system let them cheat for, say, several more months. And then the system finally came to its senses and banned them. I look and see: oh, finally, the cheaters have been banned. About whom I reported to the system a long time ago with detailed justification that they are cheaters.

@TheMagnusAura said [^](/forum/redirect/post/UXIeTNTk) > >What's the point of your comment? I know that without you. You haven't told me anything new on this topic, but you've wasted my time replying to your comments. I'm not interested in just talking. That's not why I started this thread. I needed specific answers to my specific questions. If there are no answers, don't write anything here. > > Nobody is obliged to tell you 'new' things. It is not them who wasted your time. If you chose to make a double edged comment on someone, you need to be accountable for that. So yeah, you wasted your time. > > >That's just saying what I wrote in other words: that comment was a guesswork based on observation, without knowledge of the actual pairing algorithm. > > The OP's point is half true and half false. > > >Google Translate translated your comment into my language as an erroneous, rude assertion about my words, as if you thought I said something incorrectly. > > Then it's time to change your translator because you are running into misunderstandings. > > >I created this thread so that someone who knows the exact algorithm (an insider at Lichess) could write it down for us. That's all. Instead, all I get here is unnecessary information that's off topic. Lichess insiders, just write: this is how this thing works! That's all. > > I suggest that you should have posted this in 'Feedback' section instead of off-topic. > > >What's fair with your scenario? Absolutely nothing! Why is it fair that I get a very strong opponent, while a weak opponent gets a very weak opponent (whom I can beat roughly 10-0)? > > Buccholz are a factor. You should post this in feedback forum to get a real answer. > > >So you are a better judge than the system? > > This thing is inappropriate to say by (@)IamNOTamod No one is obligated to tell me anything; anyone could have simply passed by. Especially considering that I had anticipated everything correctly in the original text, stating that I was seeking information from those who knew for sure. And if they wanted to make assumptions, then let them start with that. I clearly wrote that I was looking for specific answers to specific questions. Ultimately, I received nothing of what the thread was intended to achieve. All I got was off-topic speculation and fantasy. No. The author's words are 100% correct. The author says: - this is true 100% - and it turns out to be true 100%; - I don't know how this is 100% for sure, but I assume that this is true; because that's how it's usually done; but I have no information on how it's done here specifically; because what's done here is what they decided to do arbitrarily, at their own discretion, and not in some generally accepted way. With this formulation, the author's statement is 100% correct. If you're trying to nitpick the words, you're wasting your time. Google Translate translates words back and forth. It also translates your words in such a way that many of them read to me as very awkward and erroneous, but I understand that in most cases, you didn't mean to write this awkward and erroneous phrase, but something else. But the translator translated your words as these awkward and erroneous phrases. And from there, I'm trying to guess what you meant, assuming you had something much more correct in mind. And by the way, knowledge of English isn't considered essential or valuable in my country. Millions of people from many, many neighboring countries study the language of my country in schools so that they can come to my country and speak my native language with me and others. No. From what I've heard, all translators translate relatively poorly, roughly like this. No. I've never posted this topic in the Off-Topic Discussion section. I posted it in the General Chess Discussion section, and then a moderator moved it to Lichess Feedback. It wasn't posted in the Off-Topic Discussion section by either me or the moderators. What you're writing wasn't there at all. You've got something mixed up. No. The topic is where the moderator put it. As you can see, your advice is far from perfect. Even this particular one is worth considering. Either you or the moderator made a mistake about whether the topic is in the right place or not. Let me remind you that I never posted this topic in the Off-Topic Discussion section. A knowledgeable person could write the algorithm in a single comment. Instead, there are already about 50 comments in the thread and not a single proper answer. I myself, before creating the topic, had a near-100% probability that Buchholz was one of the factors. And aren't we on this forum now? We are, I think. We're on Lichess Feedback. In any case, it was the moderator who put the topic here. Are you criticizing the moderator's actions if you're criticizing them? Or maybe you're mistaken. Yes, in that matter (the one he was asking about), I'm a better judge than the system. The system banned many cheaters based on my reports, with detailed justifications (and it thanked me for them many times). And it didn't ban some cheaters based on my reports, and then it banned them. So, I knew for a long time that they were cheaters, I sent the system reports about them (that they were cheaters), and the system mistakenly didn't ban them. Then some time passed (say, several months), and the system banned them. I immediately realized they were cheaters and told the system so. At first, the system couldn't find them, then it disagreed with me that they were cheaters. The system let them cheat for, say, several more months. And then the system finally came to its senses and banned them. I look and see: oh, finally, the cheaters have been banned. About whom I reported to the system a long time ago with detailed justification that they are cheaters.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.