So if you go to my profile you can see a graph where my rating climbed steadily even though I had losses I was winning at above 50 to 1 ratio playing many games at once so I never took a big hit, it is almost impossible to lose to someone average at my level, as it would be a big shock it's -50, same as for someone steady on average rating they would only get -1 if they lose and sometimes even 0 but maybe 50 to a 100 points if they managed to beat me. You can go to other players in the top 10 and see that their rating is steady. Its all relative as explained in the link below:brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2017 11:02 am -50 for a loss, that's pretty dramatic. It must be extremely hard to climb any higher, hard to understand how it works. Given the chaos of that kind of function, isn't the top level mostly luck based?
- https://en.lichess.org/qa/6/how-does-the-rating-system-work-on-hereIt's best to think of ratings as "relative" figures (as opposed to "absolute" figures). By this I mean: within a pool of players, their relative differences in ratings will help you estimate who will win/draw/loss, and how often. Saying "I have X rating" means nothing unless there are other players to compare that rating to.
It is very hard to climb higher, you need a technique that is really unheard of, and hard to remember the ins and outs if opponent moves differently. But if you beat people near to your rating you can still make + 5 or 10 for winning and only -20/30 for losing. But they are few and far between in tournaments and live. I can still challenge them to a series when they're online.
https://en.lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/racingKings