I think they're roughly equal really, so that's great if you're back to where you wanted to be... but I dunno about yahoo's ratings being very consistent, I've had about every rating level give me a good game / beat me, and I've had about every rating level play 300 points below their rating and lose.
I think it'd be good to check out your local chess scene, visit a club or drive to a tournament. Then you can gauge yourself against something more consistent.
the problem is that Yahoo is full of cheaters
another thing is the possibility to choose opponents. a 1600 may really be a 1300 beating a bunch of1200s to get there so you cant really ever rely on internetratings. personally i feel that chess.com members are more "booked up" than on yahoo but maybe thats just me:)
Indeed, don't ever rely on online ratings to evaluate your play. When I came back to chess and started playing here, imagine the surprise a 1600 player had when he was eaily beated by me (then I just started from 1200).
In addition, I blunder when I don't have much time for a game. It's natural - you sometimes play poorly, sometimes - brilliant.
If Chess.com ratings are in any way equivalent to Yahoo ratings then it means that I'm once again playing Chess at the same level I played when I quit Chess many years ago. Before I celebrate, I'd like to observe that Chess.com ratings, unlike Yahoo ratings, often don't tell much about the strength of an opponent. I've played Chess games on this site against opponents with scores in the 1600's who played like their rating was in the low 1400's. By the same token, I've played against people with scores in the 1400's who gave me a better fight than most 1600's ever did. At Yahoo, if I recall correctly, I rarely beat a player with a score higher than 1600. Have I gotten better at Chess or is it an illusion caused by Chess.com's rating inflation and variability?