JaIex013 wrote:
For mid tier players chess.com has higher ratings. In the higher levels (above 2000) it’s more balanced but seems lichess has a stronger field
bro really said mid tier
Lichess Players are stronger
Sort:
Aug 17, 2022
0
#24
Do percentile comparisons mean anything? I could create 8 billion accounts in chess.com at 500 elo, and wouldn't it make everyone above that rating shoot up in percentile?
Aug 17, 2022
0
#25
Your point is somewhat correct, in the sense that lichess is generally favoured by the intermediate/advanced crowd, whereas chess.com sees pretty much universal use. I think it's mainly because chess.com appeals more to new players.
I used to be rated 1400 here and 1700 there. Now 1650 both places. I think an influx of newbies to chess.com changed the curve. I use both sites.
Aug 17, 2022
0
#27
bollander wrote:
Chess.com is for beginners
Lichess is for better players who like to have actual features to analyze games for free
Lichess is for better players who like to have actual features to analyze games for free
OK, bye!
Aug 28, 2022
0
#28
I think lichess is stronger at higher levels but much weaker at lower levels
Aug 28, 2022
0
#29
If you can beat 1700s in lichess, but cant beat them here, doesnt that mean that lichess is weaker?
Aug 28, 2022
0
#31
My chess.com blitz rating (1150) puts me at the 80th percentile while my lichess blitz rating (1600) puts me at the 56th percentile so yes, the average lichess player is stronger than the average chess.com player. Comparing the ratings and saying that lichess ratings are inflated, therefore chess.com players are stronger is flawed because the ratings don't mean much; it's the percentile that tells the real story.
The percentiles aren't comparable, because Lichess stats only consider players active within the past week.
Chess.com stats consider players active within the past 6 months (last I checked).
Therefore, you can't reliably compare the two stats, as chess.com stats include a lot of inactive players.
Aug 28, 2022
0
#33
IronSteam1 wrote:
The percentiles aren't comparable, because Lichess stats only consider players active within the past week.
Chess.com stats consider players active within the past 6 months (last I checked).
Therefore, you can't reliably compare the two stats, as chess.com stats include a lot of inactive players.
Also, chess.com has more players in the beginner ratings. If you just google "online chess" (like i did when I first made my account), you get chess.com. Usually you only hear about lichess by word of mouth or sometime later. So it's logical to assume that lichess has a smaller base of weaker players, which makes the percentiles "harder".
Aug 28, 2022
0
#34
B1ZMARK wrote:
IronSteam1 wrote:
The percentiles aren't comparable, because Lichess stats only consider players active within the past week.
Chess.com stats consider players active within the past 6 months (last I checked).
Therefore, you can't reliably compare the two stats, as chess.com stats include a lot of inactive players.
Also, chess.com has more players in the beginner ratings. If you just google "online chess" (like i did when I first made my account), you get chess.com. Usually you only hear about lichess by word of mouth or sometime later. So it's logical to assume that lichess has a smaller base of weaker players, which makes the percentiles "harder".
I find the games easier on Lichess against intermediate players.
When you google "chess online" you get chess.com. This first result causes chess.com to have a larger pool of beginner players, and as a result, an easier time in the percentiles.
Meanwhile, people who discover lichess are probably more into the game.