I know 1200ish OTB players with Lichess Rapid ratings 1700-1900. That not what “accurate” means.
I’m over 1800 OTB. My Lichess ratings seem too high and my play there is generally sloppy. My chess.com ratings are much closer to OTB.
You can't compare ratings from different rating systems in different playerbases.
That’s correct.
also adding to the above comment, the strength is very accurate at 2000+ as it starts leveling out and becoming more harder to climb and build rating, from there its more skill like here 
@ziryab why does it say your account violated terms of service on lichess? And if I remember correctly you said on these forums you are only in the 80 something percentile on lichess compared to your 97.7 percentile here. That would account for your "sloppy play" there I guess...
That’s not me. I use different names at different sites. Twenty years ago, I used the same name everywhere. I still use that old name at sites where I haven’t played in several years and sites that no longer exist. I have one name I use in two places, but generally I pick a new name when I create an account at a new site. I was Ziriab at ICC for a few years, but have a different name there now.
My blitz percentile at Lichess is 90.
My Lichess ratings:
@ziryab why does it say your account violated terms of service on lichess? And if I remember correctly you said on these forums you are only in the 80 something percentile on lichess compared to your 97.7 percentile here. That would account for your "sloppy play" there I guess...
That’s not me. I use different names at different sites. Twenty years ago, I used the same name everywhere. I still use that old name at sites where I haven’t played in several years and sites that no longer exist. I have one name I use in two places, but generally I pick a new name when I create an account at a new site. I was Ziriab at ICC for a few years, but have a different name there now.
My blitz percentile at Lichess is 90.
My Lichess ratings:
I have used the same screen name for almost 30 years online. So you are afraid to post your name? Even more suspicious. That guy named ziryab on lichess is around the same rating as you a year ago. And i swear you literally said it was in the 80s. But 90 is still lower then 97.7 on chess.com. Which proves my point that ratings from different playerbases don't compare or reflect the skill of those respected playerbases.
Which is why I find it misleading how you implied that your "sloppy play" at lichess meant your rating should not be that high as if the players there were not as skilled there. But the truth is you rank much lower on lichess regardless of your rating being higher.
Again, the rating is simply a tool to ensure competitive matches and fair rankings. The numerical value is completely meaningless. Striving and encouraging the site to design the mmr system so the ratings are similar to the players OTB ratings sacrifices the quality of games for the average player. Meaning how consistently competitive they are. This is because this website has a completely different playerbase and the rating is only a reflection of the skill within it, specific to this site.
The problem with chess.com especially at the average players rating, is that it is completely inaccurate. Meaning players actual play will vary greatly regardless of whatever rating they have and this gives a sense of unfairness and does not feel as sporting. On Lichess, a players rating, unless they are in an evaluation period, will reflect more accurately how they will most likely play on the board, in relation to the rest of that playerbase.
And from what it looks like and from research i have done and read, it seems that chess.com use to evaluate people from a single middle rating, but then changed that at some point. I think it was a combination of people like you complaining the ratings did not equate to OTB ratings, and also to make it easier for streaming speedrunners making alt accounts. And so imo, the quality of matches are much better on lichess.
So, now you are accusing me both of fear and dishonesty.
There are many things that you do not understand about chess. Did you know that a man nicknamed Ziryab introduced chess to Europe? He is mentioned in many chess books and other histories. It stands to reason that others also might opt to use the name on a chess site.
I had a terrific games of chess today OTB. I lost, but it was great fun. My opponent was a young man who was on a team that I coached 13-15 years ago and now is a professional chess coach. He invested significant time preparing for our game by studying my past games.
Using different names on different sites makes it harder for my potential opponents to find all my games. That way I can practice some openings that they might think that I never play.
This is my page on Lichess:
I first joined in 2013, but lost my password and created another account so I could play (twice). My current account is not new.
Also, aside from a substantial drop in bullet on this site and a rise in puzzles on Lichess, my ratings now and a year ago are pretty close.
Maybe it is time for you to stop spamming this and other forums with personal attacks grounded in ignorance. People like you are a very good reason for people to maintain some privacy online. Using different names on different sites is one method.
In my "limited" experience playing slightly more than 8000 games on Lichess, nearly 80,000 here, and another 60,000+ at ICC, ChessWorld, Chess24, Net-Chess, Chess.net, Queen Alice, Playchess, FICS, Instant Chess, Chessmaster Online, and a few others, the pairings are much better on chess.com.
@ziryab why does it say your account violated terms of service on lichess? And if I remember correctly you said on these forums you are only in the 80 something percentile on lichess compared to your 97.7 percentile here. That would account for your "sloppy play" there I guess...
That’s not me. I use different names at different sites. Twenty years ago, I used the same name everywhere. I still use that old name at sites where I haven’t played in several years and sites that no longer exist. I have one name I use in two places, but generally I pick a new name when I create an account at a new site. I was Ziriab at ICC for a few years, but have a different name there now.
My blitz percentile at Lichess is 90.
My Lichess ratings:
I have used the same screen name for almost 30 years online. So you are afraid to post your name? Even more suspicious. That guy named ziryab on lichess is around the same rating as you a year ago. And i swear you literally said it was in the 80s. But 90 is still lower then 97.7 on chess.com. Which proves my point that ratings from different playerbases don't compare or reflect the skill of those respected playerbases.
Which is why I find it misleading how you implied that your "sloppy play" at lichess meant your rating should not be that high as if the players there were not as skilled there. But the truth is you rank much lower on lichess regardless of your rating being higher.
Again, the rating is simply a tool to ensure competitive matches and fair rankings. The numerical value is completely meaningless. Striving and encouraging the site to design the mmr system so the ratings are similar to the players OTB ratings sacrifices the quality of games for the average player. Meaning how consistently competitive they are. This is because this website has a completely different playerbase and the rating is only a reflection of the skill within it, specific to this site.
The problem with chess.com especially at the average players rating, is that it is completely inaccurate. Meaning players actual play will vary greatly regardless of whatever rating they have and this gives a sense of unfairness and does not feel as sporting. On Lichess, a players rating, unless they are in an evaluation period, will reflect more accurately how they will most likely play on the board, in relation to the rest of that playerbase.
And from what it looks like and from research i have done and read, it seems that chess.com use to evaluate people from a single middle rating, but then changed that at some point. I think it was a combination of people like you complaining the ratings did not equate to OTB ratings, and also to make it easier for streaming speedrunners making alt accounts. And so imo, the quality of matches are much better on lichess.
So, now you are accusing me both of fear and dishonesty.
There are many things that you do not understand about chess. Did you know that a man nicknamed Ziryab introduced chess to Europe? He is mentioned in many chess books and other histories. It stands to reason that others also might opt to use the name on a chess site.
I had a terrific games of chess today OTB. I lost, but it was great fun. My opponent was a young man who was on a team that I coached 13-15 years ago and now is a professional chess coach. He invested significant time preparing for our game by studying my past games.
Using different names on different sites makes it harder for my potential opponents to find all my games. That way I can practice some openings that they might think that I never play.
This is my page on Lichess:
I first joined in 2013, but lost my password and created another account so I could play (twice). My current account is not new.
Also, aside from a substantial drop in bullet on this site and a rise in puzzles on Lichess, my ratings now and a year ago are pretty close.
Maybe it is time for you to stop spamming this and other forums with personal attacks grounded in ignorance. People like you are a very good reason for people to maintain some privacy online. Using different names on different sites is one method.
In my "limited" experience playing slightly more than 8000 games on Lichess, nearly 80,000 here, and another 60,000+ at ICC, ChessWorld, Chess24, Net-Chess, Chess.net, Queen Alice, Playchess, FICS, Instant Chess, Chessmaster Online, and a few others, the pairings are much better on chess.com.
Maybe indirectly, we have also debated when you defend speedrunners, and you definitely have a fear of speed chess becoming more respected then classical...lol I indeed think it is dishonest to wrongfully imply that lichess has weaker players especially when referencing an irrelevant rating number between the two. What is more accurate is the fact you are ranked much lower on lichess even though it has way less players.
And you still haven't linked to any page on lichess my friend. Am I missing it somewhere?
When have I defended speedrunners? You need to lay off the drugs, dude.
Why would fear something that will not occur? You are delusional.
I never said that Lichess has weaker players. I have said, as has everyone else, that 1800 rated players on Lichess are weaker than 1600 rated players on chess.com.
Prior to COVID, much of my 10 minute play at Lichess was while eating lunch. I would get a burger while running errands and would play 2-3 games while eating. My games on chess.com at the same time control are usually played at home. That’s the sole reason I characterize my play at Lichess as slightly sloppier than here.
If you can read the stats, you will see clearly what my lower percentile on Lichess indicates: there is a smaller percentage of low rated players. That’s all. The percentiles there correspond well to USCF percentiles. On the other hand, chess.com offers me far more opponents. The number of players here who are better than me dwarf the number on Lichess who are stronger.
Not only that, but I beat more titled players on chess.com every year than I have played on Lichess in seven years. I usually lose to titled players, scoring perhaps 15%.
Yea. You know nothing. Enjoy your weekend. I’m wasting my time pointing out your delusions.
Here I am 1800 rapid, 1700-1800 blitz, on lichess I am 2100 rapid, 2000 blitz.
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.
Lichess IS better, I am almost the same rating in both, but i like more Lichess, sorry
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'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?
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?
of course but I don't see your point? But first of all when you run into provisional accounts, which I never see at all in blitz at all, that makes things less accurate. But the point is that there is a reason most people have higher ratings in rapid and classical then they do in blitz, on both sites, but even more drastically so on lichess. Not only cause its easier with more time to think for most of us, but because the competition is weaker, and because it has less players.
What you are doing now is admitting that. Do you understand the concept at all? <<< not intentionally insulting you, just a lack of patience, which is my problem in chess too lol
Sorry I dont follow the last sentence. What concept are you refering to?
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?
of course but I don't see your point? But first of all when you run into provisional accounts, which I never see at all in blitz at all, that makes things less accurate. But the point is that there is a reason most people have higher ratings in rapid and classical then they do in blitz, on both sites, but even more drastically so on lichess. Not only cause its easier with more time to think for most of us, but because the competition is weaker, and because it has less players.
What you are doing now is admitting that. Do you understand the concept at all? <<< not intentionally insulting you, just a lack of patience, which is my problem in chess too lol
Sorry I dont follow the last sentence. What concept are you refering to?
competitive sport. You don't truly what understand what that means. When you say wouldn't ranking up fix the issue. You don't understand that is irrelevant to the point I made. And you are confirming as you said "ranking up", meaning higher ratings, exist more in that time control. When you say ranking up, you are confirming it is less competitive.
But we can't argue chess.com is more competitive then lichess due to ratings. or the fact it has more GM's playing. Because it is a different rating system and a different playerbase. Also when you we judge by percentile of the same player playing on both sites that doesn't always equate. And that can also be argued due to the difference in systems in place.
No I mean if you find Rapid to easy ranking up should fix the issue. Then your opponent will be more skillfull.
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?
of course but I don't see your point? But first of all when you run into provisional accounts, which I never see at all in blitz at all, that makes things less accurate. But the point is that there is a reason most people have higher ratings in rapid and classical then they do in blitz, on both sites, but even more drastically so on lichess. Not only cause its easier with more time to think for most of us, but because the competition is weaker, and because it has less players.
What you are doing now is admitting that. Do you understand the concept at all? <<< not intentionally insulting you, just a lack of patience, which is my problem in chess too lol
Sorry I dont follow the last sentence. What concept are you refering to?
competitive sport. You don't truly what understand what that means. When you say wouldn't ranking up fix the issue. You don't understand that is irrelevant to the point I made. And you are confirming as you said "ranking up", meaning higher ratings, exist more in that time control. When you say ranking up, you are confirming it is less competitive.
But we can't argue chess.com is more competitive then lichess due to ratings. or the fact it has more GM's playing. Because it is a different rating system and a different playerbase. Also when you we judge by percentile of the same player playing on both sites that doesn't always equate. And that can also be argued due to the difference in systems in place.
No I mean if you find Rapid to easy ranking up should fix the issue. Then your opponent will be more skillfull.
I said it is easier then blitz. Not too easy for me to play. Dude....stop posting. First of all i'm not playing for rating, but rating is a nice way to follow my progress and judge what to expect from my opponent, not for me to compare with others. That is what the speedrunning streamers are teaching you.
I have no plans to stop posting and I am going to discuss what ever I want to and it is not up to you to decide.
I am 600 on chess.com, 900 on lichess
The following link covers data collected in 2016. The graphs have changed somewhat since the pandemic, but it should generally still be true for most players.
https://www.chess.com/blog/smarterchess/chess-rating-comparison-2016
300 points higher there. That’s because everyone starts at 1500 there.