Well, for me, my rating is pretty accurate to my USCF rating. A while ago chess.com adjusted their rating system to better mirror the real ratings, so this shouldn't be a problem anymore.
However, I have had the issue of playing players rated the same that just seem like Paul Morphy brought back to life: they are insanely hard to beat and seem much better than I am.
Very very weird. I have few friends who play alot on chess.com and rating differences are like:
2000 FIDE = 2150 USCF = 2250 chess.com
There are many players with blitz elo 1200-1400 with 10k+ games which are actually underrated but for some reasons they are stuck at that level(many in porpose will lower their rating so can beat/wins agains lower rated). If they have schance will beat any 1500 player or so. I found i score and have wins more easily vs 1500-1600 rated players than 1300-1400. Maybe those i encouter are just playing for fun/casually, than those with 10k games. From Hutch stream he plays 1300-1400, what i saw is good understanding of opening etc. that some 1600 lack.
Also keep in mind there are cheaters. A lot of them. They will hang piece or so but will play almost perfect game.
I'm a 2000 rated player, but on chess.com I struggle even against 1500s. If I do face someone 1900+, they seem much much better than me. Is this the same for anyone else?
I'm a 2000 rated player, but on chess.com I struggle even against 1500s. If I do face someone 1900+, they seem much much better than me. Is this the same for anyone else?