I've just checked with my blitz games and they are correct.
Won | Lost | |
1454 | 1269 | |
1267 | 1250 | |
1156 | 1323 | |
953 | 1318 | |
1193 | 1312 | |
1240 | 1170 | |
1052 | ||
1016 | ||
9331 | 7642 | 16973 |
1166.375 | 1273.667 | 1212.357 |
Perhaps you're including unrated games whereas they are not?
13 months ago, the average opponents' rating was removed from the chess statistics, then returned in response to many complaints. After it was returned several people complained that the calculations were no longer correct. I cannot independently verify these observations, but I suspect this may be related to the gross errors now visible in this statistic for some players.
For example, the average opponent rating for my online chess is hundreds of points higher than what chess.com displays as the average opponent rating. I see a similar huge inaccuracy in the average opponent rating of my current opponent in an ongoing online chess game.
In my entire time on the site I have only played one or two players a few points below the displayed average rating, and the other opponent ratings go up to about 1000 points above the supposed average. The displayed supposed average of online chess opponent ratings is completely unrelated to their actual ratings. Certainly no other data should be included in this statistic, so it is definitely wrong.
I would expect that if such a clear bug was reported to any company that was concerned about having an image of integrity and professionalism, it would be treated seriously and dealt with promptly. What does chess.com manage? Well, several other people reported this bug 13 months ago. There are likely many others who have done so in the intervening year.
How can it be that chess.com does not have access to a single programmer who can implement trivial arithmetic correctly? Or does this really demonstrate the complete contempt for user feedback over the past 13 months that it appears to?
I should make clear that the reason I am posting this is that I posted a bug report in a conscientious and helpful way, but have not received a professional response. The person who responded had clearly not looked at the numbers at all, but made a wild (and completely incorrect) guess as to an explanation. I replied to this response, explaining why the explanation made no sense and that there was a real bug to be dealt with. I have not received a response to this communication. Is this really the sort of incompetent impression chess.com wants to give to users?