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

@Inventor_1

You claim the system is absurd. I say it is just different. As absurdity is subjective there is nothing more either of us can say about this.

I'm abandoning ship.

@IamNOTamod said ^

@Inventor_1

You claim the system is absurd. I say it is just different. As absurdity is objective there is nothing more either of us can say about this.

I'm abandoning ship.

It's both absurd and different. What's unclear? I've explained its absurdity in detail above. Even my initial comment in the thread clearly demonstrates the absurdity of such a system. It's designed on anti-sport principles, punishing the strong and skilled for their strength and skill, while rewarding weakness and ineptitude. But that's not what this thread is about!!! I'll remind you again. 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, when you read this, just write: this is how this thing works! That's all.

"It's both absurd and different"

And I say it's different but not absurd. This is relative: no one can truly confirm [a lack of] absurdity.

"my initial comment in the thread clearly demonstrates the absurdity of such a system[...]"

And I clearly demonstrated your lack of evidence.

"But that's not what this thread is about!!!"

Do not shout.

"I created this thread so that someone who knows the exact algorithm (an insider at Lichess) could write it down for us"

If that is so, you will, I hope excuse me for abandoning ship.

@IamNOTamod said ^

"It's both absurd and different"

And I say it's different but not absurd. This is relative: no one can truly confirm [a lack of] absurdity.

"my initial comment in the thread clearly demonstrates the absurdity of such a system[...]"

And I clearly demonstrated your lack of evidence.

"But that's not what this thread is about!!!"

Do not shout.

"I created this thread so that someone who knows the exact algorithm (an insider at Lichess) could write it down for us"

If that is so, you will, I hope excuse me for abandoning ship.

The absurdity is proven by arguments. If you couldn't understand it, that only means that you specifically couldn't understand it. The absurdity follows from the fact that it's unsportsmanlike. Chess is a sport. Anything unsportsmanlike in a sport is absurd. Chess should follow sporting principles. Which is almost always the case. Only rare absurd misunderstandings sometimes arise. For example, like this. One of the most absurd misunderstandings in chess in many, many years. Strength in sport (and in chess, because it is a sport) should be rewarded. But here, the exact opposite is happening: strength is punished, weakness is encouraged. It's 100% unsportsmanlike. Therefore, it's 100% absurd. 100% proven. You can hide from the facts, it doesn't affect the facts. If you can't say anything on the topic (and while you've only talked off-topic, you've wasted my time, I didn't come here to talk, but for specific answers to my questions "what specific algorithm") - then just for the sake of talking, there's no need to write anything further here.

"For the sake of talking"

How ironic, given that of the two hundred words you just wrote, you might as well have said nothing.

"Strength is punished"

Not at all. This way it is fair; playing someone similarly ranked AND around your strength, rather then crushing your opponent. This way everyone has a chance to win, not just the higher-rated.

"Weakness is encouraged"

Not at all. The "weaker" players will play against similarly "weak" players. You mentioned sandbaggers; well these will simply be caught.

And your downvoting of my posts does not make my point less valid, nor does it make your point more valid.

@IamNOTamod said ^

"For the sake of talking"

How ironic, given that of the two hundred words you just wrote, you might as well have said nothing.

"Strength is punished"

Not at all. This way it is fair; playing someone similarly ranked AND around your strength, rather then crushing your opponent. This way everyone has a chance to win, not just the higher-rated.

"Weakness is encouraged"

Not at all. The "weaker" players will play against similarly "weak" players. You mentioned sandbaggers; well these will simply be caught.

And your downvoting of my posts does not make my point less valid, nor does it make your point more valid.

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)? Absolutely unfair! For example. There's me and there's my opponent, and it's the last round of a tournament. I get a 2300+ player as an opponent, and he gets a 1500+ player as an opponent. And he finishes higher in the tournament than me. Is that fair in your opinion? No! For example, I played the tournament with a performance rating of about 2300, and he played the tournament with a performance rating of about 1600. Is that fair in your opinion? No!

@IamNOTamod said ^

"For the sake of talking"

How ironic, given that of the two hundred words you just wrote, you might as well have said nothing.

"Strength is punished"

Not at all. This way it is fair; playing someone similarly ranked AND around your strength, rather then crushing your opponent. This way everyone has a chance to win, not just the higher-rated.

"Weakness is encouraged"

Not at all. The "weaker" players will play against similarly "weak" players. You mentioned sandbaggers; well these will simply be caught.

And your downvoting of my posts does not make my point less valid, nor does it make your point more valid.

Or I'll explain it to you this way. Example 2. 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 this fair in your opinion? Absolutely unfair! Absolutely unsportsmanlike! Absolutely absurd!

@IamNOTamod said ^

"For the sake of talking"

How ironic, given that of the two hundred words you just wrote, you might as well have said nothing.

"Strength is punished"

Not at all. This way it is fair; playing someone similarly ranked AND around your strength, rather then crushing your opponent. This way everyone has a chance to win, not just the higher-rated.

"Weakness is encouraged"

Not at all. The "weaker" players will play against similarly "weak" players. You mentioned sandbaggers; well these will simply be caught.

And your downvoting of my posts does not make my point less valid, nor does it make your point more valid.

The current system is also very useful for cheaters. Those cheaters who, for some reason, value a higher place in a tournament (by scoring more points) under this system. 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, using an account specifically designed for this purpose. They get much weaker opponents than honest players with ratings of 2100-2300. As a result, they often score more points than them, often finishing higher. This is done both in tournaments with cash prizes and in team tournaments (in which many teams also offer prizes for their players based on team results). I've seen many players who very, very often enter important tournaments (with cash prizes, team tournaments) with relatively low (for themselves) ratings, and then score a relatively high number of points in the tournament, their rating increasing significantly over the course of the tournament. Then, in the following days, they suddenly play dramatically worse in regular hourly tournaments and lose their rating. Just in time for the next important tournament (with cash prizes or team tournaments). And if they don't get too brazen (and only lower their rating by 100-150 points), they won't be caught and their cheating won't be proven; they know it.
And you were the one who started disliking. I didn't dislike you (even for comments that I immediately saw were incorrect) until I saw your dislike. In response, I only disliked those of your comments that I thought were incorrect and deserved a dislike.

"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.

@Inventor_1 said ^

Definitely not.

You can disagree with how it's currently implemented but you can't say deny the way it's implemented. The way I described it is the way it works. It's been confirmed several times by moderators in the forums.
See also https://adjva4.dpdns.org/tournament/help:

"At the start of the tournament, players are paired based on their rating.
As soon as you finish a game and return to the tournament lobby, you will be paired with a new opponent close to your rank in the tournament."

Definitely not every opponent is chosen. They are selected from those currently available.

Yeah, that's what I said.

For example, there are 1,000 players in a tournament. Opponents are not matched every second. On average, from my observations, the wait for an opponent is about 15 seconds. At this point, there are, I think, about 20 players available.

You're telling it like the algorithm intentionally discards some random players (or conspiracy theorists will say they're not random) from those currently available for unknown reasons and then pair the rest with each other. That's obviously incorrect. The players who are not available are simply already in a game or paused/withdrawn.

For example, one player has an average opponent rating of 2500, another 1300. The first is an international master who played at the top of the tournament throughout the tournament, the second is a newbie who played at the bottom of the tournament.

That's logical. If the IM has a high percentage of victories and therefore stays in the first pages of the standings throughout the whole tournament it is normal that they keep playing the stronger opponents. The same is true for the beginner who loses most of their games and will stay in the last pages of the standings where other beginners are.

It is possible that at the beginning of the tournament there are a few medium-low rated players who won their first games and are in the higher standings surrounded by high rated players and will be paired with them the next game.
The same way a strong player that late joins the tournament will have a much higher probability to be paired with a low rated opponent as they will have zero points and are expected to face players who have lost one or more games.
It is also possible that two strong players late join at the same time, therefore both have zero points and similar rating and get paired together.