Ratings don’t make sense
Sort:
Is there a reason why the ratings on chess.com are no where close to the ratings on other sites such as lichess? For the same time constraints on other sites I’m around 1800-1900. Here I’m about 1300-1400. Not understanding why the ratings are different. And the ratings here do not reflect the actual rating of the person. For example, I recently played someone with a rating of 1208. He won… played better and is better than me after looking at other ratings at different timed games and puzzles. He also has way more games played under his belt than me under the time constraint he beat me at.. so?? None of this makes much sense to me.
Feb 6, 2022
0
#2
This is like going to another country and asking why currency is different. Different sites have different inflations and fluctuations...
A chess rating is not an absolute measurement like height or speed. A chess rating is relative to everyone else in the playing pool. As @canadian_rt notes, different pools fluctuate in a variety of ways. Also, I believe lichess starts new members at 1500 whereas I believe most people at chess.com start lower, so on average lichess ratings will be higher.
Also, the rating of any individual can range pretty widely. It's not unusual for ratings to fluctuate +/- 100 or even 200 points--especially at faster time controls--due to hot and cold streaks and random fluctuation.
I disagree with the analogy but thanks for your input.
Feb 6, 2022
0
#5
On chess.com you can start from 400, or from 2 000 for instance. On lichess, you start from 1 500. That is the biggest difference. On the very high level, when someone is lets say 2 500 and stronger the ratings are similar.
But for most people the rating difference is around 300 points roughly, sometimes more, sometimes less.
One more thing. Chess.com rating is closer to real FIDE or USCF rating than lichess rating is.
Nov 24, 2024
0
#6
This might be a stupid question, but why am I number 11 in the silver league, if i am only in the 9.2th percentile? Based on my research, there are more people in the lower leagues than there are in the higher leagues which would make sense, right? But then if I am in the ninth percentile, that means Over ninety percent of the people on this website are better at chess than I am, But I am number eleven in the silver league, which is the fourth highest league out of eight leagues. I can't make sense of this. It just doesn't add up.
Kogelschatz wrote:
This might be a stupid question, but why am I number 11 in the silver league, if i am only in the 9.2th percentile? Based on my research, there are more people in the lower leagues than there are in the higher leagues which would make sense, right? But then if I am in the ninth percentile, that means Over ninety percent of the people on this website are better at chess than I am, But I am number eleven in the silver league, which is the fourth highest league out of eight leagues. I can't make sense of this. It just doesn't add up.
Leagues consist of small groups of people. Like my league is 41 people now. So it's not hard to get into tops, just play A LOT of games, win some of them and you'll be a LEGEND soon.