what is your chess.com rating compared to your Lichess rating?
Sort:
calbitt5750
Jul 1, 2022
0
#181
840 here, 1200 there.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#182
The lichess player universe is better than chess.com. I’m 840 here, which is about 60th percentile. On lichess, which I don’t play as often, 1200, which is 13th percentile. So there’s a lot of lower rated players like me here that put me in the top half, but I’m a cellar dweller there. I think up around 2000 it evens out.
calbitt5750 skrev:
The lichess player universe is better than chess.com. I’m 840 here, which is about 60th percentile. On lichess, which I don’t play as often, 1200, which is 13th percentile. So there’s a lot of lower rated players like me here that put me in the top half, but I’m a cellar dweller there. I think up around 2000 it evens out.
If you google chess, chess.com is the first site in the results. At least for me. So it makes sense that if you are new to chess you take the first chess site you can find to start playing on.
So like my own story I started on chess.com because it was the first result on google. And only after I played here for some time I find out about Lichess, and tried it out as well.
Jimemy wrote:
CooloutAC skrev:
Jimemy wrote:
CooloutAC skrev:
dude0812 wrote:
MabuseMD wrote:
I've followed the discussion in this thread and understand Lichess generally has higher ratings until around 2100. What I don't understand is the following:
A rating of 1675 in rapid puts me in the 98.4% percentile at chessdotcom
A rating of 1868 at lichess puts me in the 81.2% percentile. To reach 98.4% you would need a Lichess rating of around 2300. That's a nearly 600 point gap for percentiles.
What conclusion can be drawn from the percentiles/rating comparison between sites? Does it mean there is a 600pt difference in rapid rating, or does it mean the Lichess pool of players are better on average than chess.com? I assumed, wrongly I guess, that I would have a similar percentile between sites (it's gradually creeping up at Lichess), but I have a hard time believing I will eventually reach 2300 at Lichess.
Thanks for any insights you can provide!
No, the rating pools are different, I have always been better than a bigger percentage of chess.com players than lichess players. When it comes to rapid ratings, chess.com I am rated 1850 rapid which puts me in the 99.6%, while on lichess I am rated 2150 rapid which puts me in the 96.2%.
When it comes to blitz ratings, on this website I am rated 1800, I am better than 98.2% of players here, while on lichess I am 2000 blitz and I am better than 87.3% players there.
And to also add to that, my blitz and rapid ratings differ drastically on lichess lol. 1100 blitz, 1400 rapid on lichess. blitz online in general is the most popular and competitive time format. but I think chess.com has way more bullet players compared to other time controls, then lichess does. And arguable bullet is the most competitive here, especially when we see it is what all the GM's and streamers prefer.
So do you think Rapid is less competitve then Rapid? If so, why do you think that? Because of less players?
I assume you meant rapid is less competitive then blitz. Yes absolutely. Because of less players and the general skill level of the players. On chess.com bullet would be the most competitive because it was the most skilled players prefer. To confirm we can see that the skill rating is highest there and the gap is widest.
I believe part of it is not only the popularity but because rapid is usually is what people like you falsely recommend beginners to play to get better at blitz and bullet lol. So if we are to break down the playerbase, most beginners are playing rapid, more advanced players are playing bullet. I don't know why this is news to you.
Can we keep the discusion to what I asked. No need to add insults. If you feel that Rapid people is less skillful. Wouldnt ranking up fixing that. Like the games get harder the higher you climb. No need to compare the rating number between Blitz and Rapid. Because it is diffrent pools. Just like Lichess and chess.com is diffrent pool. And I know you wouldnt say that people is less skillfull because of lower rating numbers on chess.com then Lichess. So why claim that Rapid players is less skillfull the Blitz players based on the rating numbers?
Hey, Jimemy!
I remember you from r/chessbeginners. Anyway, a couple of things:
1) CooloutAC is a notorious chess.com forum troll. Basically, he is really frustrated with his low rating rating and slow progress, and blames all of it on speedrunners and cheaters. He is so obsessed with both, in fact, that he'll bring them up at any opportunity, even when they are completely irrelevant to the topic of the conversation. He will also insult and/or ban anyone who doesn't share his viewpoint about speedrunners. Anyway, by trying to have a conversation with him, you're literally just wasting your time. He's not here to have a conversation - he's here to cope with his rating insecurity by convincing himself that it's all because of seedrunners.
2) You're completely right. Glicko-based matchmaking guarantees that every pool is competitive no matter how small or weak it is on average (unless you're the single best or worst player in said pool, but neither you nor Coolout are). Either way, I think what Coolout meant to say is that the Rapid pool is, on average, weaker than the Blitz and Bullet pools, which is true, because the vast majority of beginners simply aren't experienced enough with the game to be comfortable playing shorter time controls. However, this difference in average pool strength is reflected in the roughly 200 point rating difference between Rapid and Blitz ratings until around 2000-2100.
3) Speaking of absolute chess strength, the average Rapid player is actually STRONGER than the average Blitz player of an equivalent rating (e.g. a 1800 Rapid player is stronger than a 1600 Blitz player). The reason for this is quite obvious - chess understanding is a far bigger factor in Rapid as compared to Blitz, in which more emphasis is on speed. However, I've noticed there is empirical evidence for this fact as well - past 2000, at which point Blitz and Rapid ratings become close to equivalent, the discrepancy between Rapid ratings and OTB ratings is usually both far smaller and more consistent than between Blitz and OTB ratings. In my own case, I asked a bunch of strong OTB players (among which was Aman Hambleton) what to expect coming into my first OTB tournament given that I am 2400+ online (Lichess Blitz), and they were all in agreement that a national rating of 1800 would be a great start. However, I have now played two 1900s players and beat both of them, with my provisional rating sitting at 2178. I felt that a lot of the skills that I exercised during these games were ones that I also exercise during Rapid games; indeed, my Rapid rating is 2340, which is far higher than that of all those Blitz 2300s with 1800s OTB ratings - their Rapid ratings usually range from 2000 to 2200.
maxkho2 skrev:
Jimemy wrote:
CooloutAC skrev:
Jimemy wrote:
CooloutAC skrev:
dude0812 wrote:
MabuseMD wrote:
I've followed the discussion in this thread and understand Lichess generally has higher ratings until around 2100. What I don't understand is the following:
A rating of 1675 in rapid puts me in the 98.4% percentile at chessdotcom
A rating of 1868 at lichess puts me in the 81.2% percentile. To reach 98.4% you would need a Lichess rating of around 2300. That's a nearly 600 point gap for percentiles.
What conclusion can be drawn from the percentiles/rating comparison between sites? Does it mean there is a 600pt difference in rapid rating, or does it mean the Lichess pool of players are better on average than chess.com? I assumed, wrongly I guess, that I would have a similar percentile between sites (it's gradually creeping up at Lichess), but I have a hard time believing I will eventually reach 2300 at Lichess.
Thanks for any insights you can provide!
No, the rating pools are different, I have always been better than a bigger percentage of chess.com players than lichess players. When it comes to rapid ratings, chess.com I am rated 1850 rapid which puts me in the 99.6%, while on lichess I am rated 2150 rapid which puts me in the 96.2%.
When it comes to blitz ratings, on this website I am rated 1800, I am better than 98.2% of players here, while on lichess I am 2000 blitz and I am better than 87.3% players there.
And to also add to that, my blitz and rapid ratings differ drastically on lichess lol. 1100 blitz, 1400 rapid on lichess. blitz online in general is the most popular and competitive time format. but I think chess.com has way more bullet players compared to other time controls, then lichess does. And arguable bullet is the most competitive here, especially when we see it is what all the GM's and streamers prefer.
So do you think Rapid is less competitve then Rapid? If so, why do you think that? Because of less players?
I assume you meant rapid is less competitive then blitz. Yes absolutely. Because of less players and the general skill level of the players. On chess.com bullet would be the most competitive because it was the most skilled players prefer. To confirm we can see that the skill rating is highest there and the gap is widest.
I believe part of it is not only the popularity but because rapid is usually is what people like you falsely recommend beginners to play to get better at blitz and bullet lol. So if we are to break down the playerbase, most beginners are playing rapid, more advanced players are playing bullet. I don't know why this is news to you.
Can we keep the discusion to what I asked. No need to add insults. If you feel that Rapid people is less skillful. Wouldnt ranking up fixing that. Like the games get harder the higher you climb. No need to compare the rating number between Blitz and Rapid. Because it is diffrent pools. Just like Lichess and chess.com is diffrent pool. And I know you wouldnt say that people is less skillfull because of lower rating numbers on chess.com then Lichess. So why claim that Rapid players is less skillfull the Blitz players based on the rating numbers?
Hey, Jimemy!
I remember you from r/chessbeginners. Anyway, a couple of things:
1) CooloutAC is a notorious chess.com forum troll. Basically, he is really frustrated with his low rating rating and slow progress, and blames all of it on speedrunners and cheaters. He is so obsessed with both, in fact, that he'll bring them up at any opportunity, even when they are completely irrelevant to the topic of the conversation. He will also insult and/or ban anyone who doesn't share his viewpoint about speedrunners. Anyway, by trying to have a conversation with him, you're literally just wasting your time. He's not here to have a conversation - he's here to cope with his rating insecurity by convincing himself that it's all because of seedrunners.
2) You're completely right. Glicko-based matchmaking guarantees that every pool is competitive no matter how small or weak it is on average (unless you're the single best or worst player in said pool, but neither you nor Coolout are). Either way, I think what Coolout meant to say is that the Rapid pool is, on average, weaker than the Blitz and Bullet pools, which is true, because the vast majority of beginners simply aren't experienced enough with the game to be comfortable playing shorter time controls. However, this difference in average pool strength is reflected in the roughly 200 point rating difference between Rapid and Blitz ratings until around 2000-2100.
3) Speaking of absolute chess strength, the average Rapid player is actually STRONGER than the average Blitz player of an equivalent rating (e.g. a 1800 Rapid player is stronger than a 1600 Blitz player). The reason for this is quite obvious - chess understanding is a far bigger factor in Rapid as compared to Blitz, in which more emphasis is on speed. However, I've noticed there is empirical evidence for this fact as well - past 2000, at which point Blitz and Rapid ratings become close to equivalent, the discrepancy between Rapid ratings and OTB ratings is usually both far smaller and more consistent than between Blitz and OTB ratings. In my own case, I asked a bunch of strong OTB players (among which was Aman Hambleton) what to expect coming into my first OTB tournament given that I am 2400+ online (Lichess Blitz), and they were all in agreement that a national rating of 1800 would be a great start. However, I have now played two 1900s players and beat both of them, with my provisional rating sitting at 2178. I felt that a lot of the skills that I exercised during these games were ones that I also exercise during Rapid games; indeed, my Rapid rating is 2340, which is far higher than that of all those Blitz 2300s with 1800s OTB ratings - their Rapid ratings usually range from 2000 to 2200.
Hey thanks for your input, and cool that you recognize me from Reddit =).
What you say makes sense so I have not really anything to add or discuss here.
Only difference is that my Rapid and Blitz is kinda similar in rating. But most likely it is because I have played way more Blitz then Rapid which might slide me little of the normal curve. Also I tend to play a little to fast in Rapid since I am so used to Blitz. So in the end I often manage to win in Rapid a lot of game by simply having more time in the middle/endgame. And also I am not so good on puzzles and stuff and I overall tend to rush to much which is a big weakness of mine when playing Rapid.
Also worth noting is that I just hit 1700 in Blitz and I fear I might loose the rating back if I play more there now so it is a big risk that I might be a little overrated there. At the same time I now feel that I might be able to hit 1800 on a good day in Rapid. Not saying that I will hit 1800 there but I might if I have a good day and get some good games in row. Like when I hit 1700 in Blitz.
I only add the last part because it might explain why my Rapid and Blitz is kinda close.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#186
CooloutAC wrote:
Jimemy wrote:
CooloutAC skrev:
dude0812 wrote:
MabuseMD wrote:
I've followed the discussion in this thread and understand Lichess generally has higher ratings until around 2100. What I don't understand is the following:
A rating of 1675 in rapid puts me in the 98.4% percentile at chessdotcom
A rating of 1868 at lichess puts me in the 81.2% percentile. To reach 98.4% you would need a Lichess rating of around 2300. That's a nearly 600 point gap for percentiles.
What conclusion can be drawn from the percentiles/rating comparison between sites? Does it mean there is a 600pt difference in rapid rating, or does it mean the Lichess pool of players are better on average than chess.com? I assumed, wrongly I guess, that I would have a similar percentile between sites (it's gradually creeping up at Lichess), but I have a hard time believing I will eventually reach 2300 at Lichess.
Thanks for any insights you can provide!
No, the rating pools are different, I have always been better than a bigger percentage of chess.com players than lichess players. When it comes to rapid ratings, chess.com I am rated 1850 rapid which puts me in the 99.6%, while on lichess I am rated 2150 rapid which puts me in the 96.2%.
When it comes to blitz ratings, on this website I am rated 1800, I am better than 98.2% of players here, while on lichess I am 2000 blitz and I am better than 87.3% players there.
And to also add to that, my blitz and rapid ratings differ drastically on lichess lol. 1100 blitz, 1400 rapid on lichess. blitz online in general is the most popular and competitive time format. but I think chess.com has way more bullet players compared to other time controls, then lichess does. And arguable bullet is the most competitive here, especially when we see it is what all the GM's and streamers prefer.
So do you think Rapid is less competitve then Rapid? If so, why do you think that? Because of less players?
I assume you meant rapid is less competitive then blitz. Yes absolutely. Because of less players and the general skill level of the players. On chess.com bullet would be the most competitive because it was the most skilled players prefer. To confirm we can see that the skill rating is highest there and the gap is widest.
I believe part of it is not only the popularity but because rapid is usually is what people like you falsely recommend beginners to play to get better at blitz and bullet lol. So if we are to break down the playerbase, most beginners are playing rapid, more advanced players are playing bullet. I don't know why this is news to you.
In rapid Arena I run into plenty of 1100-1300 players who play much stronger than many 2000 rated opponents.
Jul 1, 2022
0
#187
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Jimemy wrote:
CooloutAC skrev:
dude0812 wrote:
MabuseMD wrote:
I've followed the discussion in this thread and understand Lichess generally has higher ratings until around 2100. What I don't understand is the following:
A rating of 1675 in rapid puts me in the 98.4% percentile at chessdotcom
A rating of 1868 at lichess puts me in the 81.2% percentile. To reach 98.4% you would need a Lichess rating of around 2300. That's a nearly 600 point gap for percentiles.
What conclusion can be drawn from the percentiles/rating comparison between sites? Does it mean there is a 600pt difference in rapid rating, or does it mean the Lichess pool of players are better on average than chess.com? I assumed, wrongly I guess, that I would have a similar percentile between sites (it's gradually creeping up at Lichess), but I have a hard time believing I will eventually reach 2300 at Lichess.
Thanks for any insights you can provide!
No, the rating pools are different, I have always been better than a bigger percentage of chess.com players than lichess players. When it comes to rapid ratings, chess.com I am rated 1850 rapid which puts me in the 99.6%, while on lichess I am rated 2150 rapid which puts me in the 96.2%.
When it comes to blitz ratings, on this website I am rated 1800, I am better than 98.2% of players here, while on lichess I am 2000 blitz and I am better than 87.3% players there.
And to also add to that, my blitz and rapid ratings differ drastically on lichess lol. 1100 blitz, 1400 rapid on lichess. blitz online in general is the most popular and competitive time format. but I think chess.com has way more bullet players compared to other time controls, then lichess does. And arguable bullet is the most competitive here, especially when we see it is what all the GM's and streamers prefer.
So do you think Rapid is less competitve then Rapid? If so, why do you think that? Because of less players?
I assume you meant rapid is less competitive then blitz. Yes absolutely. Because of less players and the general skill level of the players. On chess.com bullet would be the most competitive because it was the most skilled players prefer. To confirm we can see that the skill rating is highest there and the gap is widest.
I believe part of it is not only the popularity but because rapid is usually is what people like you falsely recommend beginners to play to get better at blitz and bullet lol. So if we are to break down the playerbase, most beginners are playing rapid, more advanced players are playing bullet. I don't know why this is news to you.
In rapid Arena I run into plenty of 1100-1300 players who play much stronger than many 2000 rated opponents.
In lichess? thats nonsense. I'm about a 1400 in rapid there and I call bs lmao. In classical i can see that, because there are alot of provisional accounts in classical. But in lichess you can see the ? mark to cast any dispersions one might have, which is important. Alot of gaming sites have done that over the years. LIke i said, I think there is a reason why chess.com doesn't want to do that, because they will have to deal with alot of complaints when we start seeing them all over the place lol.
If you are talking about chess.com, well its irrelevant. Most people are higher rated in rapid then they are in blitz. The reason for that is there is less players, and the competition is not as strong. That is because of people like you who recommend beginners play slower time controls imo, or because you claim its the only way for one to progress at chess. Also lets face it, its easier to play rapid because you have more time to think.
I'm talking about here, On Lichess, I never play anyone under 1700 unless they are a student.
Today on this site:
2000 played like junk.
1300 played exceptionally well and beat me.
1900 rapid here, 2000 on lichess.
Ziryab skrev:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Jimemy wrote:
CooloutAC skrev:
dude0812 wrote:
MabuseMD wrote:
I've followed the discussion in this thread and understand Lichess generally has higher ratings until around 2100. What I don't understand is the following:
A rating of 1675 in rapid puts me in the 98.4% percentile at chessdotcom
A rating of 1868 at lichess puts me in the 81.2% percentile. To reach 98.4% you would need a Lichess rating of around 2300. That's a nearly 600 point gap for percentiles.
What conclusion can be drawn from the percentiles/rating comparison between sites? Does it mean there is a 600pt difference in rapid rating, or does it mean the Lichess pool of players are better on average than chess.com? I assumed, wrongly I guess, that I would have a similar percentile between sites (it's gradually creeping up at Lichess), but I have a hard time believing I will eventually reach 2300 at Lichess.
Thanks for any insights you can provide!
No, the rating pools are different, I have always been better than a bigger percentage of chess.com players than lichess players. When it comes to rapid ratings, chess.com I am rated 1850 rapid which puts me in the 99.6%, while on lichess I am rated 2150 rapid which puts me in the 96.2%.
When it comes to blitz ratings, on this website I am rated 1800, I am better than 98.2% of players here, while on lichess I am 2000 blitz and I am better than 87.3% players there.
And to also add to that, my blitz and rapid ratings differ drastically on lichess lol. 1100 blitz, 1400 rapid on lichess. blitz online in general is the most popular and competitive time format. but I think chess.com has way more bullet players compared to other time controls, then lichess does. And arguable bullet is the most competitive here, especially when we see it is what all the GM's and streamers prefer.
So do you think Rapid is less competitve then Rapid? If so, why do you think that? Because of less players?
I assume you meant rapid is less competitive then blitz. Yes absolutely. Because of less players and the general skill level of the players. On chess.com bullet would be the most competitive because it was the most skilled players prefer. To confirm we can see that the skill rating is highest there and the gap is widest.
I believe part of it is not only the popularity but because rapid is usually is what people like you falsely recommend beginners to play to get better at blitz and bullet lol. So if we are to break down the playerbase, most beginners are playing rapid, more advanced players are playing bullet. I don't know why this is news to you.
In rapid Arena I run into plenty of 1100-1300 players who play much stronger than many 2000 rated opponents.
In lichess? thats nonsense. I'm about a 1400 in rapid there and I call bs lmao. In classical i can see that, because there are alot of provisional accounts in classical. But in lichess you can see the ? mark to cast any dispersions one might have, which is important. Alot of gaming sites have done that over the years. LIke i said, I think there is a reason why chess.com doesn't want to do that, because they will have to deal with alot of complaints when we start seeing them all over the place lol.
If you are talking about chess.com, well its irrelevant. Most people are higher rated in rapid then they are in blitz. The reason for that is there is less players, and the competition is not as strong. That is because of people like you who recommend beginners play slower time controls imo, or because you claim its the only way for one to progress at chess. Also lets face it, its easier to play rapid because you have more time to think.
I'm talking about here, On Lichess, I never play anyone under 1700 unless they are a student.
Today on this site:
2000 played like junk.
1300 played exceptionally well and beat me.
I would look at his track record. How old is his account and how many games does he have on it. If its an account that is like 1-2 months old and very few games on it. Yeah then there might be a big risk that he is cheating in some way. Also it might be risk that more people cheat in arenas/tournaments then in the normal pool. I am not saying he is cheating do. But this thing is what I would have look at.
Would you mind sharing the game? It would be interesting to see how the game looks like.
Liches: 2156 Bullet, 2103 Blitz, 2064 Rapid; Chess.com: 1901 Bullet, 1803 Blitz, 1810 Rapid.
Jul 2, 2022
0
#191
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Jimemy wrote:
CooloutAC skrev:
dude0812 wrote:
MabuseMD wrote:
I've followed the discussion in this thread and understand Lichess generally has higher ratings until around 2100. What I don't understand is the following:
A rating of 1675 in rapid puts me in the 98.4% percentile at chessdotcom
A rating of 1868 at lichess puts me in the 81.2% percentile. To reach 98.4% you would need a Lichess rating of around 2300. That's a nearly 600 point gap for percentiles.
What conclusion can be drawn from the percentiles/rating comparison between sites? Does it mean there is a 600pt difference in rapid rating, or does it mean the Lichess pool of players are better on average than chess.com? I assumed, wrongly I guess, that I would have a similar percentile between sites (it's gradually creeping up at Lichess), but I have a hard time believing I will eventually reach 2300 at Lichess.
Thanks for any insights you can provide!
No, the rating pools are different, I have always been better than a bigger percentage of chess.com players than lichess players. When it comes to rapid ratings, chess.com I am rated 1850 rapid which puts me in the 99.6%, while on lichess I am rated 2150 rapid which puts me in the 96.2%.
When it comes to blitz ratings, on this website I am rated 1800, I am better than 98.2% of players here, while on lichess I am 2000 blitz and I am better than 87.3% players there.
And to also add to that, my blitz and rapid ratings differ drastically on lichess lol. 1100 blitz, 1400 rapid on lichess. blitz online in general is the most popular and competitive time format. but I think chess.com has way more bullet players compared to other time controls, then lichess does. And arguable bullet is the most competitive here, especially when we see it is what all the GM's and streamers prefer.
So do you think Rapid is less competitve then Rapid? If so, why do you think that? Because of less players?
I assume you meant rapid is less competitive then blitz. Yes absolutely. Because of less players and the general skill level of the players. On chess.com bullet would be the most competitive because it was the most skilled players prefer. To confirm we can see that the skill rating is highest there and the gap is widest.
I believe part of it is not only the popularity but because rapid is usually is what people like you falsely recommend beginners to play to get better at blitz and bullet lol. So if we are to break down the playerbase, most beginners are playing rapid, more advanced players are playing bullet. I don't know why this is news to you.
In rapid Arena I run into plenty of 1100-1300 players who play much stronger than many 2000 rated opponents.
In lichess? thats nonsense. I'm about a 1400 in rapid there and I call bs lmao. In classical i can see that, because there are alot of provisional accounts in classical. But in lichess you can see the ? mark to cast any dispersions one might have, which is important. Alot of gaming sites have done that over the years. LIke i said, I think there is a reason why chess.com doesn't want to do that, because they will have to deal with alot of complaints when we start seeing them all over the place lol.
If you are talking about chess.com, well its irrelevant. Most people are higher rated in rapid then they are in blitz. The reason for that is there is less players, and the competition is not as strong. That is because of people like you who recommend beginners play slower time controls imo, or because you claim its the only way for one to progress at chess. Also lets face it, its easier to play rapid because you have more time to think.
I'm talking about here, On Lichess, I never play anyone under 1700 unless they are a student.
Today on this site:
2000 played like junk.
1300 played exceptionally well and beat me.
post his profile dude so we can look at it. sounds suspect. You didn't even show his rating. come on man i expect better forum skills from you. This is one of the reasons I like LIchess better. Chess.com matches are just not as consistent. I mean they have way more rapid players then on lichess, so there really is no excuse for it. You were denying this, now you have admitted to having the same experience on chess.com, and also said you don't on lichess. Thankyou for that.
You need to review the terms of service. You are asking me to violate them.
I do agree that in rapid on chessdotcom, there are more inconsistencies in performance, especially, in my experience, players 1000-1500. Some are remarkably strong while most are predictably weak. Less often, a 2000 will play as one might expect from a 1200.
That’s all I was noting with the two graphs.
Naming and shaming is against the TOS on proper forum behavior. I deliberately hid revealing data.
People wont know lichess without knowing chess.com. That means chess.com pool has more percentage of beginners.
For me around 2200 rate,
99% in chess.com
95-96% in lichess.
https://lichess.org/@/drmrboss
Jul 2, 2022
0
#194
Jimemy wrote:
Ziryab skrev:
CooloutAC wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
CooloutAC wrote:
Jimemy wrote:
CooloutAC skrev:
dude0812 wrote:
MabuseMD wrote:
I've followed the discussion in this thread and understand Lichess generally has higher ratings until around 2100. What I don't understand is the following:
A rating of 1675 in rapid puts me in the 98.4% percentile at chessdotcom
A rating of 1868 at lichess puts me in the 81.2% percentile. To reach 98.4% you would need a Lichess rating of around 2300. That's a nearly 600 point gap for percentiles.
What conclusion can be drawn from the percentiles/rating comparison between sites? Does it mean there is a 600pt difference in rapid rating, or does it mean the Lichess pool of players are better on average than chess.com? I assumed, wrongly I guess, that I would have a similar percentile between sites (it's gradually creeping up at Lichess), but I have a hard time believing I will eventually reach 2300 at Lichess.
Thanks for any insights you can provide!
No, the rating pools are different, I have always been better than a bigger percentage of chess.com players than lichess players. When it comes to rapid ratings, chess.com I am rated 1850 rapid which puts me in the 99.6%, while on lichess I am rated 2150 rapid which puts me in the 96.2%.
When it comes to blitz ratings, on this website I am rated 1800, I am better than 98.2% of players here, while on lichess I am 2000 blitz and I am better than 87.3% players there.
And to also add to that, my blitz and rapid ratings differ drastically on lichess lol. 1100 blitz, 1400 rapid on lichess. blitz online in general is the most popular and competitive time format. but I think chess.com has way more bullet players compared to other time controls, then lichess does. And arguable bullet is the most competitive here, especially when we see it is what all the GM's and streamers prefer.
So do you think Rapid is less competitve then Rapid? If so, why do you think that? Because of less players?
I assume you meant rapid is less competitive then blitz. Yes absolutely. Because of less players and the general skill level of the players. On chess.com bullet would be the most competitive because it was the most skilled players prefer. To confirm we can see that the skill rating is highest there and the gap is widest.
I believe part of it is not only the popularity but because rapid is usually is what people like you falsely recommend beginners to play to get better at blitz and bullet lol. So if we are to break down the playerbase, most beginners are playing rapid, more advanced players are playing bullet. I don't know why this is news to you.
In rapid Arena I run into plenty of 1100-1300 players who play much stronger than many 2000 rated opponents.
In lichess? thats nonsense. I'm about a 1400 in rapid there and I call bs lmao. In classical i can see that, because there are alot of provisional accounts in classical. But in lichess you can see the ? mark to cast any dispersions one might have, which is important. Alot of gaming sites have done that over the years. LIke i said, I think there is a reason why chess.com doesn't want to do that, because they will have to deal with alot of complaints when we start seeing them all over the place lol.
If you are talking about chess.com, well its irrelevant. Most people are higher rated in rapid then they are in blitz. The reason for that is there is less players, and the competition is not as strong. That is because of people like you who recommend beginners play slower time controls imo, or because you claim its the only way for one to progress at chess. Also lets face it, its easier to play rapid because you have more time to think.
I'm talking about here, On Lichess, I never play anyone under 1700 unless they are a student.
Today on this site:
2000 played like junk.
1300 played exceptionally well and beat me.
I would look at his track record. How old is his account and how many games does he have on it. If its an account that is like 1-2 months old and very few games on it. Yeah then there might be a big risk that he is cheating in some way. Also it might be risk that more people cheat in arenas/tournaments then in the normal pool. I am not saying he is cheating do. But this thing is what I would have look at.
Would you mind sharing the game? It would be interesting to see how the game looks like.
Arena to cheaters is as a pile of steaming manure to flies. But, the appropriate place for looking at the details you seek is located elsewhere: https://www.chess.com/club/cheating-forum
Jimemy wrote:
maxkho2 skrev:
Jimemy wrote:
CooloutAC skrev:
Jimemy wrote:
CooloutAC skrev:
dude0812 wrote:
MabuseMD wrote:
I've followed the discussion in this thread and understand Lichess generally has higher ratings until around 2100. What I don't understand is the following:
A rating of 1675 in rapid puts me in the 98.4% percentile at chessdotcom
A rating of 1868 at lichess puts me in the 81.2% percentile. To reach 98.4% you would need a Lichess rating of around 2300. That's a nearly 600 point gap for percentiles.
What conclusion can be drawn from the percentiles/rating comparison between sites? Does it mean there is a 600pt difference in rapid rating, or does it mean the Lichess pool of players are better on average than chess.com? I assumed, wrongly I guess, that I would have a similar percentile between sites (it's gradually creeping up at Lichess), but I have a hard time believing I will eventually reach 2300 at Lichess.
Thanks for any insights you can provide!
No, the rating pools are different, I have always been better than a bigger percentage of chess.com players than lichess players. When it comes to rapid ratings, chess.com I am rated 1850 rapid which puts me in the 99.6%, while on lichess I am rated 2150 rapid which puts me in the 96.2%.
When it comes to blitz ratings, on this website I am rated 1800, I am better than 98.2% of players here, while on lichess I am 2000 blitz and I am better than 87.3% players there.
And to also add to that, my blitz and rapid ratings differ drastically on lichess lol. 1100 blitz, 1400 rapid on lichess. blitz online in general is the most popular and competitive time format. but I think chess.com has way more bullet players compared to other time controls, then lichess does. And arguable bullet is the most competitive here, especially when we see it is what all the GM's and streamers prefer.
So do you think Rapid is less competitve then Rapid? If so, why do you think that? Because of less players?
I assume you meant rapid is less competitive then blitz. Yes absolutely. Because of less players and the general skill level of the players. On chess.com bullet would be the most competitive because it was the most skilled players prefer. To confirm we can see that the skill rating is highest there and the gap is widest.
I believe part of it is not only the popularity but because rapid is usually is what people like you falsely recommend beginners to play to get better at blitz and bullet lol. So if we are to break down the playerbase, most beginners are playing rapid, more advanced players are playing bullet. I don't know why this is news to you.
Can we keep the discusion to what I asked. No need to add insults. If you feel that Rapid people is less skillful. Wouldnt ranking up fixing that. Like the games get harder the higher you climb. No need to compare the rating number between Blitz and Rapid. Because it is diffrent pools. Just like Lichess and chess.com is diffrent pool. And I know you wouldnt say that people is less skillfull because of lower rating numbers on chess.com then Lichess. So why claim that Rapid players is less skillfull the Blitz players based on the rating numbers?
Hey, Jimemy!
I remember you from r/chessbeginners. Anyway, a couple of things:
1) CooloutAC is a notorious chess.com forum troll. Basically, he is really frustrated with his low rating rating and slow progress, and blames all of it on speedrunners and cheaters. He is so obsessed with both, in fact, that he'll bring them up at any opportunity, even when they are completely irrelevant to the topic of the conversation. He will also insult and/or ban anyone who doesn't share his viewpoint about speedrunners. Anyway, by trying to have a conversation with him, you're literally just wasting your time. He's not here to have a conversation - he's here to cope with his rating insecurity by convincing himself that it's all because of seedrunners.
2) You're completely right. Glicko-based matchmaking guarantees that every pool is competitive no matter how small or weak it is on average (unless you're the single best or worst player in said pool, but neither you nor Coolout are). Either way, I think what Coolout meant to say is that the Rapid pool is, on average, weaker than the Blitz and Bullet pools, which is true, because the vast majority of beginners simply aren't experienced enough with the game to be comfortable playing shorter time controls. However, this difference in average pool strength is reflected in the roughly 200 point rating difference between Rapid and Blitz ratings until around 2000-2100.
3) Speaking of absolute chess strength, the average Rapid player is actually STRONGER than the average Blitz player of an equivalent rating (e.g. a 1800 Rapid player is stronger than a 1600 Blitz player). The reason for this is quite obvious - chess understanding is a far bigger factor in Rapid as compared to Blitz, in which more emphasis is on speed. However, I've noticed there is empirical evidence for this fact as well - past 2000, at which point Blitz and Rapid ratings become close to equivalent, the discrepancy between Rapid ratings and OTB ratings is usually both far smaller and more consistent than between Blitz and OTB ratings. In my own case, I asked a bunch of strong OTB players (among which was Aman Hambleton) what to expect coming into my first OTB tournament given that I am 2400+ online (Lichess Blitz), and they were all in agreement that a national rating of 1800 would be a great start. However, I have now played two 1900s players and beat both of them, with my provisional rating sitting at 2178. I felt that a lot of the skills that I exercised during these games were ones that I also exercise during Rapid games; indeed, my Rapid rating is 2340, which is far higher than that of all those Blitz 2300s with 1800s OTB ratings - their Rapid ratings usually range from 2000 to 2200.
Hey thanks for your input, and cool that you recognize me from Reddit =).
What you say makes sense so I have not really anything to add or discuss here.
Only difference is that my Rapid and Blitz is kinda similar in rating. But most likely it is because I have played way more Blitz then Rapid which might slide me little of the normal curve. Also I tend to play a little to fast in Rapid since I am so used to Blitz. So in the end I often manage to win in Rapid a lot of game by simply having more time in the middle/endgame. And also I am not so good on puzzles and stuff and I overall tend to rush to much which is a big weakness of mine when playing Rapid.
Also worth noting is that I just hit 1700 in Blitz and I fear I might loose the rating back if I play more there now so it is a big risk that I might be a little overrated there. At the same time I now feel that I might be able to hit 1800 on a good day in Rapid. Not saying that I will hit 1800 there but I might if I have a good day and get some good games in row. Like when I hit 1700 in Blitz.
I only add the last part because it might explain why my Rapid and Blitz is kinda close.
Yeah, it's definitely hard to adjust to the Rapid pace after playing a bunch of Blitz - I have firsthand experience of this. This effect is exacerbated for players that have never played Rapid.
Moreover, it may just be that you have a high processing speed and are thus naturally more suited to Blitz. I know many players around your rating with a LOWER Rapid than Blitz rating simply because their speed of thought and intuition are significantly better than their calculation ability, for example.
And yeah, the fact that 1700 Blitz is your peak while 1700 Rapid is your casual level might also play a role. It's possible that once get acclimated to the Rapid pace and play enough games to eventually stumble upon a run of good form, you'll hit 1800 and maybe even higher.
Jul 3, 2022
0
#196
@CooloutAC Cool it with the stupid accusations. Present your points and be nice. Posting a game that identifies the player in a manner that intimates the player used help is a violation of the TOS. Even in the Cheater’s Forum, names must be removed when such games are posted.
The site’s mods are letting you get away with a great many violations, but they crack down when I do them.
As for your game, it does look like two 800s, as you say. Good job finding the tactics!
I did a Lichess study on this game, which was played against a 1900 rapid rated player. It is stunning how often the position occurs. 383 games with my oppponent’s 6…Bh5.
This is a screenshot of the Lichess database. Black faces several mate threats.
Jul 3, 2022
0
#197
Take it a move further and you find that several players over 2000 have made the same moves as my 1900 opponent.
Jul 3, 2022
0
#198
Ziryab wrote:
The site’s mods are letting you get away with a great many violations, but they crack down when I do them.
Just think of it this way... if you see 100 new posts by coolout in the last hour, it takes a lot of... uh... lobotomy to be able to read them. Better to skip as much as possible.
But if you see Ziryab posted a lot, it'd be easy to read them.
Jul 3, 2022
0
#199
@CooloutAC Even a compliment goes past you. You need to stop behaving like a 12 year old who’s been put on restriction from video games.
Present your views without attacking people who disagree. It is fine to attack their ideas, if you find them wanting, but use evidence and argument. You might ind that other people here have more respect for you if you could behave like an adult.
