Because if they weren't supposed to be cross-compared then they wouldn't bother using a scale where 2500 means you're really good and 1000 means you just started. I don't know if they use an official scale like Elo, but they use the same looking scale.
Tactics Ratings
Sort:
My rating seems to reflect my games.
Ghostly14 wrote:
Because if they weren't supposed to be cross-compared then they wouldn't bother using a scale where 2500 means you're really good and 1000 means you just started. I don't know if they use an official scale like Elo, but they use the same looking scale.
To the best of my knowledge they both use the Glico rating system which is an elabouration of the Elo system (the Elo system being a special case of the Glico system).
You can't compare both site's accurately because they are functioning using two different pools of both questions and players. What could be happening to you is that your uncertainty rating on chesstempo is very low resulting in very slow progress and your uncertainty rating was very high here which allowed you to quickly climb up the ratings scale (similar to how wiping out your history on here and starting afresh can result in a quick improvement on your old rating).
On Chesstempo.com I have a tactics rating of about 1550, which I think is reasonable. Recently I bought a premium membership on chess.com so I began to do more tactics trainer here. I now have a 1950 tactics rating here, while my chesstempo rating is still 1550.
Has anyone else had such a drastic difference in tactics ratings? Is the chess.com tactics rating system inflated compared to other tactics resources?