Chess.com or Lichess?

Basically, I believe the rating range is messed up. It is 200 points too low. I think this is caused by a huge number of cheats. There, I said it. I will probably get in trouble.

If everyone is playing fair (big IF) they should have a rating close to 1800. I should have that rating too, and I did for many years on here. It is my level on all the other time controls, and on Lichess. If I was to play a computer opponent set at 1800, I would win 50/50.

So why is chess.com Blitz freakishly low rated with strong players at the so called "lower intermediate" range?

Either there are a load of geniuses or there are a lot of cheats, who skew the balance. I suspect the latter due to the very robotic nature of play. It is not just the bayonet attack they seem to have "memorised", that is just one example. There are LOADS of openings and so many players seem to know so much, and so many sidelines!

For example, I play the Pirc defence and they all seem to know how to stop it. But just consider the huge number of replies to e4 (classical, sicilian- with many variations, French, Caro Kann, Scandianavian, and many others). And yet they never seem to run into trouble against the Pirc? Come on!

Now, if it is the first of these two, and everyone is playing fair, then why not just alter the ratings so we seem higher?

 You might say "who cares about a number idiot?" but it does matter. Because players want to know if they are improving over time or getting worse, or staying the same. I was originally 1300 years ago, then worked my way up to 1800... suddenly I am back in the 1400 range and I want to know what is going on.

The chess.com blitz rating is as close as you're going to get as far as a real rating goes. You want to think the inflated rating of another website is accurate but you couldn't be more wrong. Go play real chess in real tournaments and you'll see. I imagine you are roughly 1300 USCF and once you see that you will quit.

All online ratings are inflated. A typical 1200 Fide rated player can easily get a 2000 rating online.

That's a bit of a stretch, but agreed that they are inflated.

Well, a lot of people started playing after the Queen's Gambit, so no wonder the ratings are skewed.

One more point. I bet one of you will say "if there are cheats, why are they only in the 1500 range and not 2400?". That is a logical argument, but here is my guess.

I think there are many players using "opening explorers" and that is how they ace the openings. These explorers cant offer moves after people exit the main line. 

I also think there are people who will play their best, and get angry if they make a stupid blunder, and just turn on their engines. They dont use it all the time, because they know they will get banned. 

That is just my guess, based on 10,000+ games on here over 10 years.

It is nor just a difference in playing level on the Blitz. As I said, I am happy to lose to a creative player, or a guy who knows his openings. But I think there is a very weird robotic playing style. Real players learn a few openings and stick to them- it is called a repertoire. If you were to look at my games, every game I play e4 (aim for kings gambit) and as black I always go with the Pirc or Kings Indian.

With some of the guys I face, I bet you would find different openings and defences played every single game, and all with the same high accuracy. And they never go for gambits- ask yourself why? Because a computer (or grand master database) doesn't recommend gambits

The days of white playing the kings gambit and winning are over. That ended 100 years ago. White just blunders a pawn. Your choice of the pirc and kings Indian is also to blame.

You are playing the most theoretical and risky openings ever existed. You can blame yourself. I suspect you enjoyed beating up on bums and when you played real chess players you hit a wall and accuse them of cheating because they know opening theory like you? You're lost and confused.

...at GRANDMASTER level, yeah.

For a club player (in fact any player below 2200), it is a very fun way to play. Especially at Blitz where players supposedly dont have much time to think.

And you blame the Pirc and Kings Indian? Are you for real?

I was referring to rapid ratings and longer time control.  The chess.com blitz ratings are actually very accurate right now. 

Above is a picture of my Blitz rating over 10 years and thousands of games, As you can see, I worked hard to improve and from looking at it, I reached my best in 2017 and then deteriorated. But that is not true- I actually improved in all other time ratings and had taken lessons on here, which certainly do help. That is one thing I do rate highly on chess.com.

So it wasn't me that got worse. Either everyone suddenly got better or they messed up the rating levels.

Another thing that is weird is that it says my current 1520 rating means I am in the top 93% of players. That makes no sense at all. It is widely known that a 1500 rating is around the half way mark.

You don't need to be a master to learn opening theory and get a good position.  A man who played for 20 years but never got good can memorize opening theory easily.  You keep making the dumb argument that ONLY YOU should know opening theory...🙄

I dont make that argument.

I make the argument that 1500 rated players really shouldn't know all the openings. That is why they are middle of the pack.

But, as my above post shows, chess.com does consider me (a 1520 rated player) to be in the top 93%, so maybe it is actually true that I am playing at a high level, and so are my opponents, and it is just the rating numbers that are totally messed up.

The percentage thingy is you compared to everyone else on the site. No big deal...a lot of people suck at chess. A lot of newbies lately.

My advice? Play your own game. Stop playing openings that can be memorized by both players.

I've started playing chess again after a very long absence, and have joined both sites. I am more of a cautious, positional player who likes to defend and counter-attack and to have a sharp eye for opportunistic tactical play, but my observations are that the blitz players on here have a considerably more attacking style than the ones on lichess. I am rated around 1400 here in blitz (I usually get to around 1450 and get beat down to 1360 and then I climb back up). But I know that I could do significantly better if I worked on being more cool & composed and also gaining more experience.

I think the ultra-aggressive play here can be off-putting to me, especially  when I want to practice certain lines. I want to play open Sicilian as Black so badly, yet White constantly go into Bowdler attack with 2. Bc4. So many times, the opponents seem to whip up their bishop onto c4 and their Queen on f3, trying to checkmate me ASAP, so they can score rating points and get a dopamine kick from the won game & move on to the next one right away. I am also a sucker for a dopamine kick from blitz, so I am not faulting them as much, but I feel like going into an attack 100% of the time when the position doesn't allow for it can easily backfire. But the intimidation factor does count far more in blitz than in rapid or classical, simply b/c there's so much less time to think. So I think this over-aggressive unimaginative play gets rewarded due to the nature of fast time control games, and a lot of folks adopt this coffeehouse style of play where they memorize certain patterns and press on, even though they'd get crushed playing like that in an OTB tournament game with slower time controls. But then again, we only live once, and I can't really blame them. I wonder, however, if this highly trappy mode of play is still prevalent at around 1700-1800 rating points.

At a real tournament...(YOU)...I'm going to win! I Memorized everything!! Only I can do that!! (Me)...Yes I know those openings too! (You)...He's cheating!!

...and the only real ratings are real FIDE tournaments over the board.

Elo is the predecessor. 

Chess.com uses Glicko-1.

Lichess uses Glicko-2.