Search "user:Toadofsky"

@DABO5000 said in #24: > But speaking on mathematics. Because there is a very large sample size on both sites. Numbers should be very close to one another. Lichess also publishes its code, in case the…

@DABO5000 said in #20: > 3. Mathematically my numbers are supported. Chess.com says .3 percent of users are cheating. And lets be honest here. Lichess is great, but they will never with the limited re…

Yeah... listening to professionals and their thought processes has been interesting, although eventually commentary without engines will be phased out since spectators get what they ask for.

@Motroskin said in #3: > and with the 4 blunders and 1 mistake in gives 62% of accuracy which makes total sense for me. ... because your moves were 62% accurate. 0% would represent "every move is a bl…

Accuracy% = 103.1668 * exp(-0.04354 * (winPercentBefore - winPercentAfter)) - 3.1669

If convenient, please help us out at https://crowdin.com/project/lichess

It's difficult, expensive, and pointless.

Maybe play 3+2 instead of 5+0 so you don't have to wait 4 minutes.

While I think there are many faults with rating systems, I don't see an easy way to improve them. Small changes even like what you're proposing could have widespread positive or negative impacts on ex…

@CruncciRoller said in #1: > players who open with their queen and play it exclusively How do you play the queen exclusively? Aren't the pawns in the way? One option to avoid such players is "Play aga…