Average Lichess players are way more average

I am a very average player and probably always will be. For 30/0 I have just struggled into the top 20% on Lichess, but somehow I am in the top 5% here for the same time control. Proof if it were needed that there is a higher proportion of stronger players on that site.

The differences are at the bottom. Chessdotcom has more complete beginners who skew the percentiles. There are ten times as many players above you here than there.

They haven't locked topics for mentioning lichess in years.

2-3

There are super strong players here. Up to 3700. But they only stay for a day.

people on lichess arent buffoons and know their openings. on chess.com even the 1800s are complete buffoons and dont know basic theory of common openings past move 3

Eh... sometimes I think it's just luck. I've had players on both sites play total garbage in the opening, and it leaves me wondering how they're rated so high... sometimes I think people are just trying something new or being silly.

on chess.com you find that there are more gotham stans and setup based opening players who nearly premove it

for example

you would not believe how much 2.e3 players there are

IIRC John Bartholemew, one of the stronger IMs (close to GM) has an OTB tournament repertoire with a lot of 1.d4 with e3 setups (bishop still on c1).

It's not an ambitious move, but it's not at all a bad move... maybe a silly way to put it but... it's sort of like playing black but you're a tempo up haha (in 1.d4 d5 openings black often doesn't have time to play Bf5 or Bg4 before e6).

Another sales rep of Lichess, needs to be blocked asap

I dabble on both sites, and I've noticed many of the same opponents, with either similar screennames, or similar playing styles ... So the line between "Lichess players" and "chess.com players" is sometimes an illusory one.

There's some overlap where the same players are playing against the same opponents, just across different platforms.

To some extent, it's the same overall player pool ...

It's easier to find chess.com when you google, so like @ziryab said more noobs here.

But yeah, would make sense if it higher ratings it's the same people.

In blitz, you are only in the top 20% here. You played about 10 games to update your 1026 blitz rating recently. so it is probably fairly accurate.

In rapid, you have only played one game so far this year. As a result, your 1374 rapid rating is probably fairly inaccurate. That is where you are claiming to be in the top 5%, so it would be better if you actually updated your rating before jumping to any conclusions.

According to the Glicko RD, your actual rapid rating could be off by as much as 168 points. (Plus or minus.)

On lichess I cant break 2500, but chess.com 3000 is EASY.

Yes, agreed. Also, I just noticed the thread title ...

"Average Lichess players are way more average".

...

Yep that was a typo sorry, should have read average Lichess players are way stronger. But I hit the button without checking that I had not made an error, which coincidentally is why I lose so many games of chess.

"To some extent, it's the same overall player pool ."

Except that the pool of rated players for classical on Lichess is around 20,000 but the rapid pool on this site is now 20 million.

"In rapid, you have only played one game so far this year."

Yep because Lichess is better in many respects.