rating question

The ratings on the two sites have different starting points and different groups of players.

1 Canadian dollar is 88 Yen. That's not hard to understand right?

Your skill is like a lump of gold, and a specific website and time control is like a market. Different markets pay you different amounts for the same lump of gold.

More specifically, ratings are not an absolute measure. They're relative to other players in the same population. The math only cares about the difference in rating, not the rating itself. For example scoring 3 out of 4 means your rating difference is roughly 200 points higher than your opponent's.

Since the number itself doesn't matter, when a website is setup, they're free to choose anything. They could start people at a rating of zero, or a million, or even a negative number.

Most sites have chosen numbers that are roughly in line with OTB ratings, so the range is roughly zero to 3000.

I had expected that the rating should reach a reasonable equilibrium. After playing 60+ rapid games, I'm still 1400+ on Lichess. I'm starting to wonder if its the bigger screen on my tablet, vs playing chess.com on my Phone.

*sigh* You still seem to be under the impression that a rating is an absolute number, handed down by God. They aren't. They are relative to the specific pool of players involved.

One rating point on chess.com is roughly equivalent to one-and-a-half rating points on lichess.

Consider the currency analogy. One US dollar is roughly equivalent to one-and-a-quarter Canadian dollars. Why? Is it because canadian dollars are printed on larger pieces of paper? Or is it because the economies of the two countries are seperate and distinct?

Well, if your rating is what’s important, i see two choices ahead for you. 

1- Play only on Lichess or any other platform that rewards you with a higher rating than Chess.com or,

2- Work to improve your Chess.com rating. 

As @llama47 and @blueemu have pointed out, ratings are not absolute. Me? I’m happy to be just a bit better today than yesterday, when all my troubles seemed so far away. (Sorry) Poor humor aside, if i can just test someone more in a second or third game, i’m happy. Once in awhile i can manage a win. But the win itself isn’t what’s paramount. Enjoying my time and improving (even if only slightly) is why i play this game. 

On lichess your starting rating is 1500, and on chess.com you can pick between 400,800,1200,1600,2000 and maybe even higher, correct me if Im mistaken. I think thats one of the reason why chess.com rating is closer to what would your OTB rating be than lichess rating is. Imagine how many games would you have to lose in order to get to 900 on lichess. But if they give you 1500 at start, intermediate and advanced players will quickly improve from that and others will fluctuate around that rating, plus it makes you feel better :)

Good points. Imagine a chess site that offers you a higher rating than another one. Hmmm… you feel good about yourself and start to believe you’re really better than before. So, you then return to the former chess site and post threads about why you think it’s unfair and point to how much better you play and how much higher your rating is on the other site. Why not start a new site that rates players from 1900 to 4500? Tramps like us will be 1900-2900 easily and be so proud! Then we can return to earth errrr…. I mean chess.com and complain about our 980 to 1400 rating. 

1000 lichess=1700 lichess

*Chess.com

#8 thanks. I dont think OP complained about his rating tho, he was just curious why is gap so big between two ratings. Reason definitely is not the screen size of device you use to play on. I also think your post reply escalated quickly and you were a little bit harsh with him for no reason. Its just my opinion so no hard feelings, I could easily be wrong. Fact is that having a higher rating does or atleast can make a person feel better. If I decide to switch to lichess and all of a sudden my rating is 2000+ I would be much more happier than being stuck at 1700xd. It doesnt mean everyone feels like that. I cant do that because I would know deeply insade me all of that is a bit unrealistic and overrated. Just like here on cc, but its atleast smaller inflation. I believe my OTB rating would be somewhere near 1400 maximum and Im working on it.

I agree with most of what you say. In fact, if one’s rating is what makes one happy then by all means play elsewhere and be happier. I think you helped support my post with the “unrealistic and overrated” comment.  As for being harsh, i disagree with you, a feeble attempt at sarcasm maybe, but harsh no. I appreciate your opinion, and no hard feelings experienced. 

im 1000 chess.com - 1800 lichess.

I wonder what rating I would be on lichess...?

#12 I love sarcasm and use it non-stop except when Im here because often it gets misunderstood and it bothers me to deal with that here. If you wanted to express yourself and thatvwas your reaction/interpertation I completely understand. But if you wanted to be helpful, try to avoid attacking because it can be repulsive and get an opposite reaction. Im glad we can agree to disagree. #14 there is only one way to find out #16 You are welcome. As person who wrote #15 said, it somehow weirdly balances out at the higher levels and those ratings are probably almost the same as on cc (+-100 maybe). Reason is unknown why there arent 4500 IMs, GMs, but I get your logic. Its just like when you switch schools. I for example went to city school up to seventh grade and were a marginal A student who had plenty of Bs. When I moved out of the city to the village and changed schools I never got worse grade than A. Its uncomparable how much the second school was easier for me. And it wasnt because I decided to study all of a sudden or got smarter. It because my classmates were a bit worse compared with classmates in first school. Competition was way easier and the same thing is happening to you on lichess. I hope this explains it.

When chess.com was first made everyone started at 1200. Over time, and after many people joined, that set up some average (whatever it happened to be)... this is important because the rating system does a good job of minimizing the impact of new players, so after the average is established it's hard to change. In other words it (almost) doesn't matter where chess.com lets new players start these days.

But that's not the end of the story. Over the years chess.com has applied a few manipulations such as adding a set amount to literally everyone's rating (I believe this was bullet and it was even closed accounts) to adding variable amounts based on rating, only for active players (they did this for rapid maybe 5 years ago).

One other factor is chess.com has a wider range of players... the difference between the top rating and lowest rating is wider than lichess. This is what makes lichess ratings > chess.com on the low end and the opposite (chess.com > lichess) on the high end.

Other factors can push and pull the average such as how a site deals with cheating.

In other words the starting rating is a red herring. It really doesn't matter. What matters is the distribution of skill among your population and the site average which is set (sometimes capriciously) by the owners.

Here's a simple graph I made a few years ago meant to represent blitz ratings. It might help you conceptualize how a wider range of players makes there be a difference in ratings.

Notice that for the same skill level, lichess ratings are higher on the left side, and chess.com higher on the right side.

-

-

(There are some shenanigans with the scaling of the axes... if they use the exact same math, I think a more realistic graph would have nearly parallel lines in the middle, then curved at the ends as the rating system is less able to place a player sufficiently far from the average)

@arnaut10, are you being sarcastic with me now?