lichess.org
Donate

The new number #1

Gotcha. I'll remember that for the stats in years to come, when the grandchildren are playing Trivial Pursuit and a question comes up, "Who was number #1 at lichess.org for longest without playing a game?" :D
With reference to #2, I'm not sure if we need Milacek to be the new number #1 - he hasn't played for over a month. In fact, 6 of the top 10 haven't played for a month!!!

What could be done to make sure that our top players aren't simply there because they're dormant...?
Eh, look at Leaders This Week, instead of the leaderboard? :)
Erm... why? I want to know the OVERALL number #1, not the number #1 of the last 7 days!!!

If I look at the English Premier League table, I don't care who has done the best in the last week, I want to know who is TOP overall. That's why we have rankings :)
Heh, this is like... doubletalk.

"I want to know the #1 overall player, but they can't have been inactive for more than a month, and it can't just be from the past week."

Good job, you don't know what you want.
@NoTimewaster: I think you misunderstand what the Leaders This Week is.

It's not just the who has done best in the last week. It's the highest rated players (their full global rating, not some "only last week" rating), who have played games in the last week.

With that in mind, if you don't like that, then what time period of inactivity do you think should knock someone off the list? If 1 week is too little, and 1 month is too much, then should it be 2 weeks?

The exact timeframe will always be somewhat arbitrary, and just speaking for me I'm quite happy with being able to see the highest rated players who have played today, in the last week, and in the last 3 months.

I suppose there will always be someone who wants a different period of time. Can't make everyone happy :)
Dear Clarkey,

Except in occasional moments, you've always made your distaste for me quite clear. I'm not sure why, but there you go. If you gave me a chance, you might actually realise I'm not the complete dick you've written me off as. So, I'm asking you, for once, to look at what I say as though I'm just any other user (maybe one ranked 2000+?) instead of just dissing whatever I say.

This is NOT like "doubletalk". You list the overall top ten players. I point out that we haven't actually had a legitimate no #1 player for rather a long time. One was allegedly a cheat, the other hasn't played for months. If you look through the rest of the top 10, you will notice that most of them (6 of 10) haven't played for over a month. It seems quite ironic to me that the current top player hasn't actually played a single match whilst in the number #1 spot.

Isn't it obvious what I want? To see a top 10 that actually means something. I'm not sure what the answer is. It certainly isn't your answer - because you haven't suggested anything. I was just musing - maybe listing players who are inactive is just a bit pointless?

"Strewth", as you chaps say!
OneOfTheQ - may I refer the right honourable gentleman to #17.

I DID misunderstand the meaning of the (unclear) "Leaders This Week". Nonetheless if we have an overall leaderboard, I simply feel that actually taking part should be part of the criteria for being on that leaderboard.
PS Clarkey, just so you know, I highly respect what you have achieved here. You're probably, from what I gather, the sort of chap I would have over for Pimms; it's just that chaps one has over for Pimms are not usually so seemingly negative towards their prospective hosts, and Australia is rather a trek :)

Perhaps we could start again?!
The thing that's broken is that the 3 month limit doesn't seem to have taken effect. Abyssus hasn't played since February.

I think it would be a bridge too far to put a quota on the amount of games each month or something to achieve a ranking. This doesn't exist anywhere.

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