any idea what a 1950 rated chess.com rapid player would be on fide

But they will win and lose similar amounts. Say plus six for a win and minus six for a loss. It does mean that a Chess.com rating is more volatile than Lichess or FIDE and therefore prone to greater inaccuracy but that inaccuracy can be either way .... up or down.

That only matters given a player maintains a 50% win rate. Say, a player maintains a win rate of 60% against similarly rated opposition. This means over the course of 100 games they will be +20 to the win column. that equates to 100 points fide, 120 points lichess and 160 points on chesscom (not exactly as they would get less rating as their rating goes up and/or their win rate would go down as they faced higher rated opponents but the basic idea stands). Basically, until a player reaches their plateau and hits a 50% win rate, they will settle at a higher rating on chesscom the stronger they are. Fide rating will be the lowest. Lichess is in the middle. The difference in ratings would be more clear cut if each used the same initial rating.

These responses you are posting — Fide rewards at least 20 for a nearby rating, and for the highest rating 39.8 per win. It makes sense as you only play either 7, 9 or 11 games per tournament of standard time control. Of course, in a month could be more than that, but I'm sure it's never more than how much you could play here. The calculation I gave is absolutely correct, passing through the starting ratings of all 4 chess playing organizers/platforms.

OK that means that a point on Lichess counts 25% more than a point on Chess.com among players who are actually moving their ratings. Doesn't that mean that Chess.com is inflated towards the top and deflated towards the lower values?

I think I'm going to be getting a FIDE otb Classical rating because they want me to join ECF. We used to have our own system, called BCF ... Britich Chess Federation, which no longer exists.

They both are different. As they said, chess.com gives 8 and lichess 6. This means they gain and loose more less by 25%. So...

Thanks everyone

My rating is probably between 1700-1850 or 1900, and I'm happy bout that

Thanks for letting me know

It depends on the K factor. I did more research and apparently the K factor is 40 until a player has played 30 games and then 20 until 2400 after which it is 10. With a K factor of 10, they would gain 5 points, 10 points if K = 20 and 20 points if K = 40. The K factor is also 40 for players of age 18 or less who are under 2300.

The rating floor also recently became 1400 for FIDE ratings as well as ratings being raised as much as 400 points depending on a players rating at the time of the change. That means FIDE ratings will most likely be comparatively higher than both lichess and chesscom ratings under 2400. Which means that a 1950 rapid on chesscom might actually be closer to 2000 FIDE. Anyone who gives anecdotal evidence that their FIDE is a lot lower than their chesscom rating is due to the strength of their local player pool being above the norm because there isn't enough FIDE events against outside competition or because they haven't played many FIDE events since the recent changes.

Yes, below about 2000-2100 most people's lichess rating will be higher than their chesscom rating but after that it will start to flip.

It depends on the person some are 2000-2100 some are 1600 is say 1900 rapid is probably closer to 1700-1800

General rule of thumbs:

- Chess.com rating is not determined with the same mathematical formula as FIDE Elo.

- Chess.com rating is (usually) higher than FIDE Elo rating,

- Assuming that you keep playing, by the very nature how it is measured, the chess.com rating will jump around constantly.

- Chess.com rating can be grinded, i.e. you can find a player whom you can dominate more than the rating difference suggest, and then you can get a higher rating that you ought to hacve; FIDE Elo by the way its measured does not allow such tricks.

Therefore, there is no direct correlation of a chess.com rating X to a FIDE Elo rating Y.

Chess.com uses Glicko, not ELO. Glicko isn't mathematically sound, or not as sound as ELO at any rate.

It's used to give an estimate quicker but also it probably only ever gives an estimate!

The FIDE ELO system uses the Glicko2 algorithm, exactly as Chess.com [Edit: I did some more research after and now know that it doesn't. But the point's not here, as immediately after said]. The point is that you generally play more online games that rated FIDE OTB games so you get higher ratings on Chess.com, especially if you're improving lately (as you have more time/games/chance to gain Chess.com ELO rather than FIDE.).

Chess.com ELO is a legitimate measure of the strength of a player if he/she played a decent amount of games for a given time control (generally Rapid Chess.com performance ELO is the most used one; performance as said on average by the Game Review, which is generally a little too OP so you have to subtract 50-100 ELO to approximate better, again especially if you're improving a lot.).

Other chess sites, like Lichess, use different ELO systems (like Glicko, not Glicko2) that are generally too OP as well as Chess.com Puzzles ELO and are less reliable in direct proportionality (you have to approximate to a linear variation regression line.). But Chess.com Rapid ELO is generally a great measure of <your potential peak ELO without improving (your performance as stated by the engine)> -k*100 (where k differs from one player another based on how much they study, their IQ, and memory.).

All that said, a 1950 Chess.com Rapid ELO player is very likely to be in the range 1900-2150 FIDE ELO (depending one more time on how much <he, she>'s improving.).

Edit afterwards: can you write any reply to this comment with correct information if this is flagged by y'all as "false"? I did some research for 2 to 3 hours and that's what I got. So, if not accurate, just provide the right range (and other info), obviously only if your objection's well-founded. And I hope no one's gonna question the performance part.

I'm? 2200 and I'm 1700 Standard with only 50+ games of play. I don't think it's my suitability of rating because people at my rating are really weak so I think mine should be somewhat nearby 1850 or something. But I don't think that 1950 should be somewhat nearby that. In my ex club there are and used to be 2400s who are 1500 classical (currently). It actually depends upon

1. Number of games you play.

2. Visualization on the board

3. Practice on the board. Without it your rating would be somewhat less than the expected. Remember: Online is 2d while real is 3d.

The only Chess Federation that uses the Glicko2 system is the Australian one.

I won't comment on the rest of your post, as it is even more false and ridiculous.

Agreed 👍. The answer is false as well.

Of course. "Practice is everything". But I beat almost all 1900 FIDE very easily while I didn't beat any of the 2000 Rapid chess.com players. In my and my chess friends' experience, that are 35 I know in real life and even more on the Internet, that is. So it is more a matter of specific players than all of them; but since I know so much I people I adjusted my reply accordingly. Well, if you don't agree it might just be because of the three things you said either with you or your opponents.

And I'd like to add three other important ones no one can reasonably question: sleep, focus, and tension.

I have the same issue like 1900, fida I can almost adopt meanwhile random 2000s(keep in mind they were around 2100 rapid online );

You're right actually about this. I did some more accurate research and asked some CMs and this is right. But you're not at all about the rest of the post. Also any wrong thing does not make the post "ridiculous", because I'm not even trying to troll anyone, and "ridiculous" has a very negative meaning in this context, at the limit with being offensive.