Chess.com ratings are rigged

Nope I just saw you get on andd this forum was at the top, also can you stop blurring my messages just because I got you down to 400 elo

It definitely works and is a good tool to help players improve alongside puzzles and lessons. But like puzzles, game review is free in lichess. Everything you could get in premium here, you could get in lichess for free.

Me personally, I treat chess.com as a social media and it's where I do the more serious rating climb since this is the most popular chess site, I'd like to take my rating climb more seriously in the bigger ocean. My lichess account is more like a study account in the sense that it's for trying out new openings, reviewing games, solving puzzles.

It rarely works for me

What about it "rarely works"? It analyzes your game in a way that it offers you the best move in every turn. A lot of times, it could even explain the idea behind why the move is bad or good. It's an effective analysis tool.

it rarely explains the idea for me, and getting the best move is available in regular analysis

Ok. Could you provide an example game? I'm pretty sure it lets you know when you allow a fork, pin, eventual checkmate, etc. It also lets you know if you missed taking a piece, missed a fork, pin, or missed checkmate.

In any case, I do think that in most of my games, the regular analysis is enough since I could derive why the engine suggests the moves that it suggests. However, game reviews are still helpful and more explanatory than the regular analysis so I'll take it over a regular analysis when available.

Hangingpiecechomper is actually a pretty good player who on the forums often pretends to be a clueless beginner. And when people respond, he pounces and starts to verbally abuse them.

I have no idea why the moderators allow this.

I can literally beat people with rating 1700 easily but my rating just can’t go up from 900

900 rated players are actually skilled

in game review it literally says my game rating was 1750

Chess.com ratings are determined by a player's performance, using the Elo rating system which adjusts scores based on wins, losses, and draws. While fluctuations in ratings can appear significant they accurately reflect changes in skill level. If you suspect any unfair play, Chess.com has implemented anti-cheat measures. Although ratings may seem inconsistent at times, they are designed to be dynamic and responsive to actual player performance.

This only indicates that in that game specifically, you were very dominant. Nobody said that 900 players can't be have flashy/dominant games.

You might have actually played like a 1750 that game but if you can't do that every game and if you can't do that in a game where your opponents respond better to your moves, you won't reach 1750.

The accuracy scores are no longer absolute. As of several years ago, they curved them so that almost everyone would get scores in the same 50 to 95 range, regardless of their rating.

It's curved by rating so that a game marked as 90% for a 500 would not be at the same level as a game marked 90% for a 2000.

Why did they do this? Because people were using CAPS to make cheating accusations when it was not designed as such and because lower scores for beginners made some of them feel badly.

Finally conclusive proof this dude is an imbecile - accuracy is not just about how good you are. It’s very easy to play at a high accuracy if people just trade off all the pieces, or if somebody blunders right at the start. Good players create imbalanced positions which are harder to navigate. So the accuracy goes down.

Have you ever played a player with 1700 rating? How?

Very suspicious story.

whats suspicious about that story, i believe him

Hahahahaha

rigged ratings are no laughing matter

hahahahahahahahhahahahahah