Answers.Body: <blockquote>
  <p>Currently, I see that the opponents make blunders sometimes, so my “rating” is not entirely reflective of my progress</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Why do you think so? If you make fewer blunders than your opponents and/or are able to punish their blunders then you play stronger than them. That's how games are won - especially between inexperienced players.</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>I am afraid that if the rating keeps going like this, I’ll have to play genius players pretty soon</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>One thing you will learn over time is that the dreaded high rated opponents are never as genius as one may have once thought. As soon as you get a bit more experienced you'll see &quot;Oh, those xxxx-rated players aren't that strong after all.&quot; So don't worry about it, just play and give it your best.</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>and I’ll then soon crash back to, say, 900, making this a futile exercise in wasting time.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>Note also that if you do play some stronger players and start losing more, your rating at worst will drop a bit after which you will play weaker players again. If you currently beat your 1060 opposition, then if you e.g. make it to 1200, then drop back down to 1060 again, you will face those same old opponents who you already know you can beat.</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p>My style of play is what I call “reactive chess”. I pretty much react to what the opponent is doing (say, thwarting a pin or punishing their blunders), rather than making elaborate plans myself. I do make plans, only that they are like, 2-3 moves long, like an indirect attack on a knight in order to win a pawn.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>That's a good way to play chess. Elaborate plans are overrated. Good plans don't win games, good moves do.</p>
  <p>In general, it's best to not overthink things, just play your games and enjoy them. Everything else, be it rating or other things, is just secondary. And even if you develop some ambition at some point, don't stress about your rating. Rating will follow your play strength, it's the play strength that matters, not the rating.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-08T09:43:27.060Z
Answers.Text: Your response to “reactive chess” was unexpected because I  until a few years ago never even knew that people studied chess. I just thought people practiced more and used their bigger brains to play better. Then I changed my mindset to start thinking that studying was the best way forward. Thank you for the insight. +1.
Answers.UserDisplayName: insipidintegrator
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-21T15:04:39.220Z
Answers.Text: I have added an edit. Would you please also reply to the edit? @koedem
Answers.UserDisplayName: insipidintegrator
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-08T01:16:46.140Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-07-08T01:16:46.140Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: koedem
Answers.Body: <p>I'd say you shouldn't worry about your rating at all and that you should welcome being paired with stronger opponents, because you'll learn more from those games - even if you don't spend more than a couple of minutes analyzing them, basically just running lichess' 'Learn from your mistakes'-function. But since you asked:</p>
  <p>Lichess offers you to customize several aspects of your gameplay, including defining a desired range of strength for opponents.</p>
  <p>Instead of quick pairing, click on <em>Create a game</em> and than choose the option to <em>Customize</em> the settings. You'll see a <code>min</code> and a <code>max</code> box where you input your preferred values. A <code>min</code> of -50 and a <code>max</code> of +20 should then pair you with an opponent whose rating is no less than 50 points below and no more than 20 above your current rating.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-08T09:41:38.937Z
Answers.Text: Yes, that’s pretty localised and focused advice. Thanks!
Answers.UserDisplayName: insipidintegrator
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-07T20:58:40.380Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-07-07T20:58:40.380Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter Fischer
Body: <p>I am a chess beginner. I love playing Blitz games (especially 3+0).</p>
  <p>I play on Lichess.org. My “Lichess blitz rating” (currently between 1040 and 1060; not giving exact value for privacy) has been going up at a pretty quick rate. Like today I played 23 and won 18 (all 3+0) so my “rating” went up by +66.</p>
  <p>Lichess basically pairs players of similar strength when “Quick Pairing” is chosen. Currently, I see that the opponents make blunders sometimes, so my “rating” is not entirely reflective of my progress, which I consider to be a problem. I am afraid that if the rating keeps going like this, I’ll have to play genius players pretty soon and I’ll then soon crash back to, say, 900, making this a futile exercise in wasting time.</p>
  <h5>Important Points to be taken into consideration:</h5>
  <ul>
  <li>I do not study chess. I am currently hugely invested in other  commitments so I don’t see myself seriously studying chess at ANY level for probably at least 2 years down the line.</li>
  <li>My style of play is what I call “reactive chess”. I pretty much react to what the opponent is doing (say, thwarting a pin or punishing their blunders), rather than making elaborate plans myself. I do make plans, only that they are like, 2-3 moves long, like an indirect attack on a knight in order to win a pawn.</li>
  <li>I love exchanging bishops and knights (Bishop for bishop, knight for knight, bishop for knight and knight for bishop). This basically helps me to get to the endgame faster.</li>
  <li>I am fascinated more by endgames, though I suck at them.</li>
  <li>My checkmates (unless planned) usually consist of just checking the king repeatedly in successive moves before a miracle checkmate just occurs.</li>
  </ul>
  <p>EDIT: I also wanted to add that a lot of the times the opponent is in a clear winning position (like, say #3) but ends up losing because their time ran out. This gives a false sense of progress. How to counter this?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-07-09T16:43:53.780Z
Comments.Text: The more games you play on the site, the slower the rating moves.
  Source: http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko.pdf
Comments.UserDisplayName: soegaard
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-07-21T15:19:42.210Z
Comments.Text: Opponent losing on time does not give a false sense of progress, unless you equate timed play with correspondence chess ability. They are not the same thing. The clock is part of the game, when used.
Comments.UserDisplayName: L. Scott Johnson
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-07-21T15:29:39.937Z
Comments.Text: @L.ScottJohnson so chess ability is accurately gauged through games with unlimited time? If so, should I start playing more of “classical” games?
Comments.UserDisplayName: insipidintegrator
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-07-21T15:46:46.807Z
Comments.Text: No, it's that "chess ability" is not one thing. Blitz ability is different than rapid ability is different than correspondence chess ability. But yes, probably what you mean by "chess ability" is best equated to longer time controls.
Comments.UserDisplayName: L. Scott Johnson
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-07-24T00:57:25.010Z
Comments.Text: Concerning the EDIT, basically this.
  Put differently, if they got a winning position by spending more time than you did, they did not really perform better. The "needed" to use more time to get that winning position. If they overdo it and lose on time, that means they did worse than you. Now, when it comes to "chess understanding" if you want to call it that, then indeed blitz may not be the best indicator. However for blitz strength it is. This should be no surprise, a marathon runner might have a better "endurance" but that need not mean he'd beat a 5k runner at a 5k race.
Comments.UserDisplayName: koedem
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-07-24T00:59:03.643Z
Comments.Text: In the end, it does not matter for this rating question. Because your rating is a blitz rating so it is well qualified for that. It might be under- or overrated if it were used for classical game pairings, but it is not. If you play classical time controls you will get a separate classical rating and corresponding even matchups.
Comments.UserDisplayName: koedem
Tags: <learning><rating><beginner><trading>
Title: “Rating” going up too fast
ThreadText: # “Rating” going up too fast
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2022-07-07)
  
  I am a chess beginner. I love playing Blitz games (especially 3+0).
  
  I play on Lichess.org. My “Lichess blitz rating” (currently between 1040 and 1060; not giving exact value for privacy) has been going up at a pretty quick rate. Like today I played 23 and won 18 (all 3+0) so my “rating” went up by +66.
  
  Lichess basically pairs players of similar strength when “Quick Pairing” is chosen. Currently, I see that the opponents make blunders sometimes, so my “rating” is not entirely reflective of my progress, which I consider to be a problem. I am afraid that if the rating keeps going like this, I’ll have to play genius players pretty soon and I’ll then soon crash back to, say, 900, making this a futile exercise in wasting time.
  
  ##### Important Points to be taken into consideration:
  
  * I do not study chess. I am currently hugely invested in other commitments so I don’t see myself seriously studying chess at ANY level for probably at least 2 years down the line.
  * My style of play is what I call “reactive chess”. I pretty much react to what the opponent is doing (say, thwarting a pin or punishing their blunders), rather than making elaborate plans myself. I do make plans, only that they are like, 2-3 moves long, like an indirect attack on a knight in order to win a pawn.
  * I love exchanging bishops and knights (Bishop for bishop, knight for knight, bishop for knight and knight for bishop). This basically helps me to get to the endgame faster.
  * I am fascinated more by endgames, though I suck at them.
  * My checkmates (unless planned) usually consist of just checking the king repeatedly in successive moves before a miracle checkmate just occurs.
  
  EDIT: I also wanted to add that a lot of the times the opponent is in a clear winning position (like, say #3) but ends up losing because their time ran out. This gives a false sense of progress. How to counter this?
  
  **Tags:** learning, rating, beginner, trading
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: The more games you play on the site, the slower the rating moves. Source: http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko.pdf  
  > **username_2**: Opponent losing on time does not give a false sense of progress, unless you equate timed play with correspondence chess ability. They are not the same thing. The clock is part of the game, when used.  
  > **username_0**: @username_2 so chess ability is accurately gauged through games with unlimited time? If so, should I start playing more of “classical” games?  
  > **username_2**: No, it's that "chess ability" is not one thing. Blitz ability is different than rapid ability is different than correspondence chess ability. But yes, probably what you mean by "chess ability" is best equated to longer time controls.  
  > **username_3**: Concerning the EDIT, basically this. Put differently, if they got a winning position by spending more time than you did, they did not really perform better. The "needed" to use more time to get that winning position. If they overdo it and lose on time, that means they did worse than you. Now, when it comes to "chess understanding" if you want to call it that, then indeed blitz may not be the best indicator. However for blitz strength it is. This should be no surprise, a marathon runner might have a better "endurance" but that need not mean he'd beat a 5k runner at a 5k race.  
  > **username_3**: In the end, it does not matter for this rating question. Because your rating is a blitz rating so it is well qualified for that. It might be under- or overrated if it were used for classical game pairings, but it is not. If you play classical time controls you will get a separate classical rating and corresponding even matchups.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2022-07-07. Score: 8 | Accepted answer
  
  I'd say you shouldn't worry about your rating at all and that you should welcome being paired with stronger opponents, because you'll learn more from those games - even if you don't spend more than a couple of minutes analyzing them, basically just running lichess' 'Learn from your mistakes'-function. But since you asked:
  
  Lichess offers you to customize several aspects of your gameplay, including defining a desired range of strength for opponents.
  
  Instead of quick pairing, click on *Create a game* and than choose the option to *Customize* the settings. You'll see a `min` and a `max` box where you input your preferred values. A `min` of -50 and a `max` of +20 should then pair you with an opponent whose rating is no less than 50 points below and no more than 20 above your current rating.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Yes, that’s pretty localised and focused advice. Thanks!  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2022-07-08. Score: 5
  
  > Currently, I see that the opponents make blunders sometimes, so my “rating” is not entirely reflective of my progress
  
  Why do you think so? If you make fewer blunders than your opponents and/or are able to punish their blunders then you play stronger than them. That's how games are won - especially between inexperienced players.
  
  > I am afraid that if the rating keeps going like this, I’ll have to play genius players pretty soon
  
  One thing you will learn over time is that the dreaded high rated opponents are never as genius as one may have once thought. As soon as you get a bit more experienced you'll see "Oh, those xxxx-rated players aren't that strong after all." So don't worry about it, just play and give it your best.
  
  > and I’ll then soon crash back to, say, 900, making this a futile exercise in wasting time.
  
  Note also that if you do play some stronger players and start losing more, your rating at worst will drop a bit after which you will play weaker players again. If you currently beat your 1060 opposition, then if you e.g. make it to 1200, then drop back down to 1060 again, you will face those same old opponents who you already know you can beat.
  
  > My style of play is what I call “reactive chess”. I pretty much react to what the opponent is doing (say, thwarting a pin or punishing their blunders), rather than making elaborate plans myself. I do make plans, only that they are like, 2-3 moves long, like an indirect attack on a knight in order to win a pawn.
  
  That's a good way to play chess. Elaborate plans are overrated. Good plans don't win games, good moves do.
  
  In general, it's best to not overthink things, just play your games and enjoy them. Everything else, be it rating or other things, is just secondary. And even if you develop some ambition at some point, don't stress about your rating. Rating will follow your play strength, it's the play strength that matters, not the rating.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Your response to “reactive chess” was unexpected because I  until a few years ago never even knew that people studied chess. I just thought people practiced more and used their bigger brains to play better. Then I changed my mindset to start thinking that studying was the best way forward. Thank you for the insight. +1.  
  > **username_0**: I have added an edit. Would you please also reply to the edit? @username_3  
  
  ---
  
  