I think most people agree to this. But it is quite logical, anyone can log in to a chess site and spread points over other players. USCF and such are more official, so I would only connect the chess.com rating to the site itself, as a reference.
Chess.com ratings
Sort:
the ratings her are inflated a little. but that is because of how they work - they are a perfect reflection of the average strength of players on each different group. USCF is inflated vs. FIDE, for example. Chess.com has, on average, a broader base of "beginners", which inflates the whole pack a little. i don't think it is off by such a margin as to feel unreasonable.
as for tactics trainer, i think that is also due to different habits. some people approach it more methodically, others just see a move, try, and fail. i'm more careful with tactics trainer, and with care i can get my rating pretty high.
Hello everybody. I am new to chess.com but have played on ICC for years and also a little bit on Chessbase's play.com. I am wondering if others feel the same way i do toward chess.com ratings both in live chess and in the tactics. I feel that the ratings on chess.com are quite inflated. The puzzles that are 1800-2000 seem to be much easier than that and also playing opponents (I almost always play 5 0) the strength seems much lower than the ratings--it has been slow to get my rating up but people in the 1500-1700 where I am now playing seem weaker than the corresponding ICC ratings--my USCF OTB rating (which is quite old) is 1931 and my ICCF corr rating is around 2140--my ICC 5 minute rating (all that I play) flucauated between 1600-1800--so far my chess.com rating is around 1600 (several disconnects and one or two big blunders have kept it down)--does anyone else share my thoughts on the ratings for this site?