Chess.com or Lichess?

You are close to 1 900 in rapid. People at that level will know a bit about openings.

Now I think that you are exaggerating when you mention 25 moves of opening theory. I am looking at your games and you've won many games where opponent has less than 60 accuracy and so on. So that is certainly not a GM level of play. 

As for let's call it "fishy" play in online chess... I am playing long games pretty much exclusively (45|45 and 60|0 most of the time). People believe that in such games they will encounter fishy play in every game, and the truth is that I rarely encounter such opponents (perhaps every 20, 30 games someone is banned). I generally rarely feel that I am playing against someone who is not playing fairly. Many people avoid long games because they fear they will be cheated, and the irony lies in the fact that it is most likely a bigger problem on higher levels in blitz games.

Because of this fear, people around 1 600 rapid rating are the highest rated people (apart form a few exceptions)  who plays 45|45 and 1 hour per side. As a result, I mostly play in a smaller pool, and people like me may have unreliable ratings. We can either be accurately rated, overrated or somewhat underrated. 

I am sure you will encounter fishy play as well, probably in a slightly bigger amount compared to me, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. There are people who cheat on every site, and you should just report it. I believe their detection level is pretty good. In fact, I think there were never a case where I was sure 100% that the opponent is cheating and that opponent wasn't caught soon enough. 

As for gambits, I never play them for instance. I feel there are just better openings at my disposal so I never bothered. I mean there are some sound ones (Smith Morra is fine and I encounter it from time to time), Benko is a legit opening as far as I know, but I am not 1.d4 player, but there are too many bad gambits, and those are rarely played in longer games I play. It is understandable that most people your level will rarely play unsound gambit lines. They wish to defeat you after all. Of course, in blitz chess, it is more logical to play gambits from time to time, I mean you might flag your opponent as well...

You can switch to other site, and you will encounter gambits, but when you get your rating to comparable value (roughly + 200-300 points compared to here), you will probably not feel a difference.

If you really wish to experience playing weaker people, you can always play 1 or 2 unrated games against slightly weaker people. As for your rating which is not what it used to be, that is normal as well. A lot of people has seen their rating diminished since Covid and Queens gambit series. So many people have created an account and there are many people who had their highest ratings a few years ago and now their ratings are 200 points weaker. 

I have started playing myself last february (I did play when I was a kid, but haven't played for 20+ years), and there were many games where I defeated players that were let's say 1 600 or 1 700 a few years ago and now they are 1 400. And their level of play is just not up to standard for someone who is 1 700 today. 

Sorry for the long post, I just wanted to address many things you've mentioned.

On lichess you start at 1500 instead of 400, 800, 1200, 1600 or 2000

If you can see my image that I posted earlier with my rating,  it clearly shows that with 1520 rating (which is what I have at the moment, after playing my very best, lol) I am the top 93%.

So maybe this means the chess.com ratings are just messed up. Because there is no way that 1500 should be in the top 93%. It should be around the mid way mark.

I guess, bearing this in mind, I should take back my comment that a lot of players are cheating.  If I am truly playing the top 7% of players, then maybe these players genuinely are guys who have just memorized a ton of stuff and play in this very mechanical way.

Anyway, I still think it is messed up on here. The correct rating range is shown below. The players above the top 93% , as shown below, actually have a rating above 1800. Weak expert.

Anyway, it looks like people will argue about this all day, I have said my opinion, that is all.

NB: I never said I should know openings and other players shouldn't. I said 1500 rated players (middle of the pack) shouldn't know so many opening lines, especially the unusual ones.

Dude! The darnn percentage is based on all chess.com players. Chess.com has a lot of weak players especially new players. I'm out. You're obtuse.

At the end of the day you and me both suck at chess. Talk when you're in a pro tournament.

You shouldn't be surprised. It just means that most of the accounts are casual players. For instance just the fact that you care about your rating and you post in forum to discuss it will most likely mean that you are putting some effort in your chess, which in turn will get you over most people's playing strength. 

So 9 out of 10 people just can't compare with that. And as I've said, a lot of people started playing chess in this online chess boom, and most of them are of course beginners.

I'm so mad right now 🤬

Nonsense, we dont suck.  Been playing for many years and have steadily improved.  My rating is well above 1800 on here, and am the top 90% in all types of chess. Your rating (if 2000 is true) is slightly higher than me.

I am sure both us would do fine in club level games OTB.

Dont be so hard on yourself.

He hasn’t played any games yet. It’s a placeholder.

If you took the time to check his account, you'd see that his '2000' rating is merely a placeholder since the only game he's played on record was too short to give him a rating (as @AunTheKnight has already said in the reply before mine)

chess.com. lichess is bad. except that i have to use it for my chess lessons -_-

Chess.com is great for beginners. The lessons are really good.

I am just getting a bit tired of it after 10 years

I am 500 here and 1000 on Lichess.   I do both.

Those ratings in my profile are default settings and they will change soon. It really should say N/A or Unrated instead of a random number. Then after a certain number of games you get a rating. Just my opinion.

Also my phone provider has such unreliable connection issues that I can only play daily games. 😒

I can see why you said you were mad in comment number 68, haha.

1200>>1870 over ten years might not sound great to you, but plenty of players dont improve that much! Chess isn't an easy game. (Might add that I got married and had two kids and did a hell of a lot of other stuff besides improving my chess in those ten years, lol.  I didn't buy  the chess.com lessons as soon as I should have. That was one big mistake I made. Once I did them, and once I started reviewing my games, my rating suddenly rose by 100pts in just a few weeks.)

Who says they "put in more effort?" It could be that they are using engines or opening explorers for the first 20 moves. Maybe they are genuine chess addicts and are taking lessons and learning loads, but many of these guys I see have only a Blitz rating and no Rapid or Daily rating- which is a bit odd. Players who truly like the game would know you can play better moves and a better game with more time on the clock. Right??

And as I said, the style of play I am seeing is kind of weird. I base that on 10 years experience of playing on here.

And either way, my main gripe is that strong players shouldn't really be rated as low as they are on Blitz. If these players have genuinely worked hard (as you say) and got to the level where they have memorized a TON of openings and dont make any blunders, and very few inaccuracies (in a 5/3 game!) then surely their rating should be 1700 or 1800. Certainly not below 1500. 

Just my opinion.

Perhaps they spend a lot of time studying openings, but neglect to work on the rest of their game, as well.

A lot of players do that, actually. They focus most of their studies on opening theory. So when they play a game, they feel comfortable and confident in the first 10 to 15 moves. They may play like masters, in the opening phase.

But then, once the murky middle-game gets underway, they begin hemming and hawing, unsure of what to do ...

That’s not how ratings work. If everyone plays that well at the 1500 level, then they will all be 1500 because they should score 50% against each other.

I forgot whether it was a book or an article that I read a long time ago, but I recall the author basically saying that almost anyone who's rated below around 1800 or so usually has significant issues with playing consistently well, and that the <1800 group is capable of playing some really amazingly bad chess on occasion. The >1800 group is also capable of playing some bad chess, too (we're all humans), but they will be more consistent, so their worst games may not be as atrociously bad than some of the games we in <1800 group play. This lack of consistency is why a lot of 1500 players stay at 1500 for long periods of time. They may have enough knowledge/intuition/experience to occasionally play at levels close to 1700 or 1800, but those flashes of brilliance are then followed by horrible blunders and narrowly avoided losses by <1000 players. Been there myself so many times.