what is your chess.com rating compared to your Lichess rating?

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.