Forums

Never playing on lichess again

Sort:
Joseph_Truelsons_Fan
BCchessnut wrote:

Is the rating inflated on Li Chess, or is the rating on Chess.com deflated?

Or is it a bit of both?

Questions to ponder, when I find the time.

 

 

l*chess is inflated, although chess.com is inflated a little bit it's not that much

Xx_Ocean_26
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Xx_Ocean_26 wrote:

Isn’t strange how our rating is really high in lichess but in chess.com it’s trash like what the fudge 

Lichess Ratings are inflated

Mhm 

B1ZMARK

skill issue

Cunning_Shadow

Wth is that youtube video???

StormCentre3
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Xx_Ocean_26 wrote:

Isn’t strange how our rating is really high in lichess but in chess.com it’s trash like what the fudge 

Lichess Ratings are inflated

No. Their rating is more inline with a players true strength. Ratings here for many players who find themselves stuck at the lower levels is for reasons that are not allowed to be discussed ! Just ask Peter Leko who started at 1500 and after 100 games could not cross 1800.

ninjaswat
StormCentre3 wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Xx_Ocean_26 wrote:

Isn’t strange how our rating is really high in lichess but in chess.com it’s trash like what the fudge 

Lichess Ratings are inflated

No. Their rating is more inline with a players true strength. Ratings here for many players who find themselves stuck at the lower levels is for reasons that are not allowed to be discussed ! Just ask Peter Leko who started at 1500 and after 100 games could not cross 1800.

Evidence?

Anonymous_Dragon
StormCentre3 wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Xx_Ocean_26 wrote:

Isn’t strange how our rating is really high in lichess but in chess.com it’s trash like what the fudge 

Lichess Ratings are inflated

No. Their rating is more inline with a players true strength. Ratings here for many players who find themselves stuck at the lower levels is for reasons that are not allowed to be discussed ! Just ask Peter Leko who started at 1500 and after 100 games could not cross 1800.

Everyone knows lichess ratings are hugely inflated. We don't need another debate on that

StormCentre3

Simply wrong as a general statement. Saying “ everybody knows” is clear indication of ignorance regarding a players relative rating strengths as compared to OTB. Online ratings are all over the place as a result of many factors.

Srinibas_Masanta
Certen_Summon wrote:

 

I can understand how it feels... Because the same thing happened to me on chess.com 🥲🥲

You can check this forum - https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/it-was-a-checkmate-but-i-ran-out-of-time

ArsikM
Lol
Anonymous_Dragon
StormCentre3 wrote:

Simply wrong as a general statement. Saying “ everybody knows” is clear indication of ignorance regarding a players relative rating strengths as compared to OTB. Online ratings are all over the place as a result of many factors.

You can say all you want and interpret my words according to your convenience. Won't change the reality . Fact is chess.com ratings tend to be much closer to your OTB strength than ratings on the other site mentioned

Solmyr1234

You gave us all a good lesson for life about "The importance of time". Thank you!

StormCentre3

Fact is you are young and have little experience with OTB ratings. Most players, a great majority of online players today have never played OTB and obviously have not an established OTB rating - which takes years. Your take on the matter is based on assumptions. 
To begin with- who plays classical formats on- line ? Nobody. OTB ratings are of longer time controls. An online blitz rating simply is not a comparable measure for most players Live, OTB classical rating. Period . End of story. Repeating what is heard/ reported does not make it true.

StormCentre3

.org ?

try chess.org

DrJetlag
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
StormCentre3 wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Xx_Ocean_26 wrote:

Isn’t strange how our rating is really high in lichess but in chess.com it’s trash like what the fudge 

Lichess Ratings are inflated

No. Their rating is more inline with a players true strength. Ratings here for many players who find themselves stuck at the lower levels is for reasons that are not allowed to be discussed ! Just ask Peter Leko who started at 1500 and after 100 games could not cross 1800.

Everyone knows lichess ratings are hugely inflated. We don't need another debate on that

 

What do you mean by 'inflated'? You might as well say the rating here is deflated. There is no absolute correct rating, it's a) relative to a pool of players, and b) relative to some initial rating. 

For a start, the rating is simply normalized differently. Lichess follows the Glicko-2 system and you typically start with 1500. If you gave everyone a starting rating of 10000, then everybody would have ratings that in that range. If everyone had a starting rating of 100, then super GMs would be at 300. 

Apart from the different rating systems, the average strength of players on lichess is higher, as chess.com markets itself more to beginners who probably don't even know that lichess exists.

korotky_trinity
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
StormCentre3 wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Xx_Ocean_26 wrote:

Isn’t strange how our rating is really high in lichess but in chess.com it’s trash like what the fudge 

Lichess Ratings are inflated

No. Their rating is more inline with a players true strength. Ratings here for many players who find themselves stuck at the lower levels is for reasons that are not allowed to be discussed ! Just ask Peter Leko who started at 1500 and after 100 games could not cross 1800.

Everyone knows lichess ratings are hugely inflated. We don't need another debate on that

 I agree.

Lichess rating are inflated though...

My rating over there is 1900... for example.

But I am not 1900, of course.

This is how I came to the conclusion that lichess ratings are not so real.

DrJetlag
korotky_trinity wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
StormCentre3 wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Xx_Ocean_26 wrote:

Isn’t strange how our rating is really high in lichess but in chess.com it’s trash like what the fudge 

Lichess Ratings are inflated

No. Their rating is more inline with a players true strength. Ratings here for many players who find themselves stuck at the lower levels is for reasons that are not allowed to be discussed ! Just ask Peter Leko who started at 1500 and after 100 games could not cross 1800.

Everyone knows lichess ratings are hugely inflated. We don't need another debate on that

 I agree.

Lichess rating are inflated though...

My rating over there is 1900... for example.

 

Inflated with respect to what? Some fictious 'true' rating? There is no such thing. The rating there is just normalized differently, the starting value is different than here (it's 1500 there).

Anonymous_Dragon
DrJetlag wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
StormCentre3 wrote:
Anonymous_Dragon wrote:
Xx_Ocean_26 wrote:

Isn’t strange how our rating is really high in lichess but in chess.com it’s trash like what the fudge 

Lichess Ratings are inflated

No. Their rating is more inline with a players true strength. Ratings here for many players who find themselves stuck at the lower levels is for reasons that are not allowed to be discussed ! Just ask Peter Leko who started at 1500 and after 100 games could not cross 1800.

Everyone knows lichess ratings are hugely inflated. We don't need another debate on that

 

What do you mean by 'inflated'? You might as well say the rating here is deflated. There is no absolute correct rating, it's a) relative to a pool of players, and b) relative to some initial rating. 

For a start, the rating is simply normalized differently. Lichess follows the Glicko-2 system and you typically start with 1500. If you gave everyone a starting rating of 10000, then everybody would have ratings that in that range. If everyone had a starting rating of 100, then super GMs would be at 300. 

Apart from the different rating systems, the average strength of players on lichess is higher, as chess.com markets itself more to beginners who probably don't even know that lichess exists.

I meant lichess ratings  are inflated with respect to the ones on this site . And yes of course I am aware that there's no absolute real rating and it depends on the elo system that's being used.