So here is a question for you. Does any one else notice this or have any insights? My blitz rating is a steady 1800 give or take here on Lichess. Over on Chess.com a have a hard time maintaining a 1500-1600 rating in blitz. Why might that be? The size of the rating pools, the quality of play, the amount of cheaters I suspect on Chess.com, the side of the server I am on. What do you guys think? Why such a big difference when I basically play the same on both sites? Any insights?
This has been talked about so many times...
A lot of people think that it is because lichess ratings start at 1500, meanwhile at chess.com it usually(I say usually because you can make 1800 your starting rating, or 800) 1200.
A lot of people think that it is because lichess ratings start at 1500, meanwhile at chess.com it usually(I say usually because you can make 1800 your starting rating, or 800) 1200.
Another thing is that there are over 10 times more players on chess.com (last time I saw the player counts, anyway.)
It is mostly because the average rating in each of the systems is different.
On chess.com, the average rating in is in the 1100-1200 range for each of the rating categories.
Here the average rating is 1500.
With those two systems, if the exact same pool of players played on both sites, ratings on chess.com would be 300-400 points lower than here.
Of course, the pool of players is NOT exactly the same, so this relationship doesn't hold uniformly.
Most players in the middle of the rating band seem to have noticeably lower ratings on chess.com, while players in the top few percent seem to have ratings more similar at both sites.
Some strong players, like hyperbullet hero Penguin, actually have higher ratings at chess.com than they do here.
There are other complicating factors, too, like berserk games being rated normally here. This often leads to some of the stronger players here berserking a lot, increasing their chances of winning a tournament, but losing rating points compared to playing regular games.
Aside from all the complicating factors, though, it's expected, and is just because the average rating is different between the two sites.
On chess.com, the average rating in is in the 1100-1200 range for each of the rating categories.
Here the average rating is 1500.
With those two systems, if the exact same pool of players played on both sites, ratings on chess.com would be 300-400 points lower than here.
Of course, the pool of players is NOT exactly the same, so this relationship doesn't hold uniformly.
Most players in the middle of the rating band seem to have noticeably lower ratings on chess.com, while players in the top few percent seem to have ratings more similar at both sites.
Some strong players, like hyperbullet hero Penguin, actually have higher ratings at chess.com than they do here.
There are other complicating factors, too, like berserk games being rated normally here. This often leads to some of the stronger players here berserking a lot, increasing their chances of winning a tournament, but losing rating points compared to playing regular games.
Aside from all the complicating factors, though, it's expected, and is just because the average rating is different between the two sites.
Interesting, thanks for the reply. I suppose it is all relative. What is the "average" rating here on Lichess anyway? I consider myself to be a little above average, but not great. Depends on who exactly you ask, I guess. I certainly do play some pretty good games, and I enjoy it. That's the main thing. Thanks again.
You are not average. You are better than 93.3% of players in classical and 85% of players in blitz.
To see the distribution:
go to your profile
click on "Classical 1945 48 games"
Click on "93.3% 0f classical players"
To see the distribution:
go to your profile
click on "Classical 1945 48 games"
Click on "93.3% 0f classical players"
#6 that would make me slightly above average and I'm godawful.
chess regulars underestimate the amount of chess casuals out there :o
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.