PSA: Even with selective solving, no average-rated player gets anywhere near 3000 legitly. The puzzles just get too complex to solve them confidently.
@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
As someone that has played puzzles on chess.com, I can confirm that @Cedur216 is correct in that chess.com puzzles are rigged to help you gain an inflated rating - hence feeling better about oneself.
Lichess puzzles don't use that sort of dishonesty.
I believe that it is possible to get a 3k puzzle rating if you just don't play games at all for months and only train on puzzles. Because it is possible that you didn't cheat, but with this sort of rating no one's going to believe you.
But if you want to prove it to the world - you have to be able to play a lot of games and get your rating to match. You can do it, you just need to start doing it :)
> @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
As someone that has played puzzles on chess.com, I can confirm that @Cedur216 is correct in that chess.com puzzles are rigged to help you gain an inflated rating - hence feeling better about oneself.
Lichess puzzles don't use that sort of dishonesty.
I believe that it is possible to get a 3k puzzle rating if you just don't play games at all for months and only train on puzzles. Because it is possible that you didn't cheat, but with this sort of rating no one's going to believe you.
But if you want to prove it to the world - you have to be able to play a lot of games and get your rating to match. You can do it, you just need to start doing it :)
@Cedur216 said in #61:
>
OP seems to be in the process of proving it from his classical progress in his profile. Let's give him a break for the moment, maybe he'll get 2100 and then it'll show! :)
>
OP seems to be in the process of proving it from his classical progress in his profile. Let's give him a break for the moment, maybe he'll get 2100 and then it'll show! :)
@greenteakitten I'm like 200 points above you. Tell me why I never got past 2650 and why I'm experiencing cycles of breakdown and recovery within the 2300-2600 range. I AM doing puzzles with care and I fancy tactical complexity more than positional play. Also note that if your rating really increases by 500 points, then you barely earn a point from any of the puzzles that earn you +10 or +20 with your current rating.
You can only get a legit 3000+ if you're a very high class player. For any average-rated player (e.g. anyone rated not better than me) it's not just a matter of "belief", it's a matter of **clear certainty by common sense** that you can't reach 3000 in puzzles.
You can only get a legit 3000+ if you're a very high class player. For any average-rated player (e.g. anyone rated not better than me) it's not just a matter of "belief", it's a matter of **clear certainty by common sense** that you can't reach 3000 in puzzles.
Yea I'm not saying that it's not highly improbable @Cedur216. And having done 2600 puzzles before I know what you mean by fluctuations in puzzle rating.
I'm saying that we should let OP prove himself for now. If he is cheating it'll just be self-sabotage, and there's always a chance that he isn't cheating (as it is possible, although highly unlikely, to not play for a long time).
Maybe he is a GM in disguise :P
I'm saying that we should let OP prove himself for now. If he is cheating it'll just be self-sabotage, and there's always a chance that he isn't cheating (as it is possible, although highly unlikely, to not play for a long time).
Maybe he is a GM in disguise :P
Thanks @greenteakitten for believing in me. Everyone thought I was a cheater. Thanks for seeing my Classical Rating /.
I should have linked this way long ago: lichess.org/forum/lichess-feedback/chess-puzzle-rating-reset-error#4
In @Cedur216 's link, Thibault said in #4:
> " I've been doing some clean up in the database. Turns out, there are hundreds of players who spend a lot of time cheating at puzzles.
> Normally we don't care at all, because they're only cheating themselves. Puzzles are not a competition.
> But it appeared that they're harming the puzzle rating system, at the very highest 0.1% range of puzzles.
> So I've been dropping some unbelievably high puzzle ratings to discourage that toxic behaviour. Next, I think I will make it so the puzzle rating is only visible to self, and not to other players.
> If your puzzle rating was dropped, and you never cheated at puzzles, I'm sorry! There are probably a few false positives. Your rating is now provisional, so just quickly play some puzzles, by setting the difficulty to "Hardest", and you'll get back there in no time. Playing puzzles should not be too much of a chore to you, I hope.
> If you cheated at puzzles, then I'm not sorry. It seems that you wasted your time, and mine."
> " I've been doing some clean up in the database. Turns out, there are hundreds of players who spend a lot of time cheating at puzzles.
> Normally we don't care at all, because they're only cheating themselves. Puzzles are not a competition.
> But it appeared that they're harming the puzzle rating system, at the very highest 0.1% range of puzzles.
> So I've been dropping some unbelievably high puzzle ratings to discourage that toxic behaviour. Next, I think I will make it so the puzzle rating is only visible to self, and not to other players.
> If your puzzle rating was dropped, and you never cheated at puzzles, I'm sorry! There are probably a few false positives. Your rating is now provisional, so just quickly play some puzzles, by setting the difficulty to "Hardest", and you'll get back there in no time. Playing puzzles should not be too much of a chore to you, I hope.
> If you cheated at puzzles, then I'm not sorry. It seems that you wasted your time, and mine."
@helloworld_1064 said in #66:
> Thanks @greenteakitten for believing in me. Everyone thought I was a cheater. Thanks for seeing my Classical Rating /.
Never said I believe in you.
A 1900 classical player cannot get a 3k rating. You haven't proved yourself at all.
All I said was I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but you better have a +300 growth in the next few days at least. Which might be hard in classical, but if you don't want to be seen as a cheater you're really going to have to work for it.
> Thanks @greenteakitten for believing in me. Everyone thought I was a cheater. Thanks for seeing my Classical Rating /.
Never said I believe in you.
A 1900 classical player cannot get a 3k rating. You haven't proved yourself at all.
All I said was I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but you better have a +300 growth in the next few days at least. Which might be hard in classical, but if you don't want to be seen as a cheater you're really going to have to work for it.
He could also forge his classical rating but then his account will be lost in no time ...