- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

How Many Here Also Use "Chess.com"?

#31

I've been a member on Chess.com for nearly ten years. I prefer the Lichess UI, but the <2000 ratings here are off by a solid 300 points.

I've been a member on Chess.com for nearly ten years. I prefer the Lichess UI, but the <2000 ratings here are off by a solid 300 points.
#32

@BrokenJester said in #31:

I've been a member on Chess.com for nearly ten years. I prefer the Lichess UI, but the <2000 ratings here are off by a solid 300 points.

By 'off' you mean chess.com's ratings are closer to FIDE's and other national ratings like UCF. But closer doesn't mean close: reaching 2000 in the rapid pool on chess.com is quite a way from 2000 FIDE or UCF. I'm sure that difference is greater than between 2000 Lichess rapid and 2000 chess.com rapid.

There are conversion graphs out there taken from real data - I've seen a few written up as blogs here on Lichess. This is all pretty cosmetic though - Lichess could pull a "chess.com puzzles" and reduce everyone's elo by x points, it wouldn't change anything important.

@BrokenJester said in #31: > I've been a member on Chess.com for nearly ten years. I prefer the Lichess UI, but the <2000 ratings here are off by a solid 300 points. By 'off' you mean chess.com's ratings are closer to FIDE's and other national ratings like UCF. But closer doesn't mean close: reaching 2000 in the rapid pool on chess.com is quite a way from 2000 FIDE or UCF. I'm sure that difference is greater than between 2000 Lichess rapid and 2000 chess.com rapid. There are conversion graphs out there taken from real data - I've seen a few written up as blogs here on Lichess. This is all pretty cosmetic though - Lichess could pull a "chess.com puzzles" and reduce everyone's elo by x points, it wouldn't change anything important.
#33

@IWouldAdapt_1 said in #30:

yes, but still its very weird when there is a match between both of 1600 elo rated players, and lichess just decides to give 30 elo points for the one who wins
the meaning is the actual perfomance of an average lichess player, is not the same as the elo he has
maybe chess.com average players has this problem too
but from what i seen for 2 years on lichess, this is kinda truth idk

No. This is not how the rating system works. The reason you get 30 points instead of 7 or so is because your rating deviation is high. When you are new here (or played very few rated games recently) your rating will change much more than when it is firmly established. This is just how Glicko rating works, and ensures quick convergence toward your "real" rating.

@IWouldAdapt_1 said in #30: > yes, but still its very weird when there is a match between both of 1600 elo rated players, and lichess just decides to give 30 elo points for the one who wins > the meaning is the actual perfomance of an average lichess player, is not the same as the elo he has > maybe chess.com average players has this problem too > but from what i seen for 2 years on lichess, this is kinda truth idk No. This is not how the rating system works. The reason you get 30 points instead of 7 or so is because your rating deviation is high. When you are new here (or played very few rated games recently) your rating will change much more than when it is firmly established. This is just how Glicko rating works, and ensures quick convergence toward your "real" rating.
#35

I've been a Chess.com member for nearly 15 years and one here for almost 8. Initially the only thing I was doing here was playing variants - King of the Hill, 3 Check, a bit of Anti-chess. Then a UI update over on Chess.com had a major impact on my preferred 1 minute bullet time control and I started playing that here instead, and then was able to play 30 second hyperbullet here as well.

Meanwhile, Chess.com released their new variants server and that brought me back to play Fog of War while variants here seem to have died - I see very few game seeks in the blitz time controls that I prefer. I eventually started playing a bit of 1 minute bullet again over on there and just accepted that I would lose time scrambles in an annoying fashion.

I'm a part of a few clubs over there as well - it's not something I went out and looked for (and I've never done so here) but I happened to do so over the years and I'm happy to play in the occasional daily chess tournaments that get organised - very different pacing but in the context of the overall contest I enjoy it. I've never played a longer time control game here - it's not the format itself that interests me, but contributing to an overall team result.

The two places have very different vibes and can co-exist. They're very much focused on introducing chess to new players and I think they've come to understand that it's okay if some of those new people will leave them and go elsewhere, like here - enough of those new people will stay with Chess.com for it to be worthwhile for them to continue to do that. Lichess does a great job at catering to the interests of its existing user base - that's one of the strengths of the open source model, but I feel like sometimes that shades over into a sense of self righteousness that frankly I find unpleasant, and which pops up in any "lichess vs chess.com" discussion, in either site's forums.

I've been a Chess.com member for nearly 15 years and one here for almost 8. Initially the only thing I was doing here was playing variants - King of the Hill, 3 Check, a bit of Anti-chess. Then a UI update over on Chess.com had a major impact on my preferred 1 minute bullet time control and I started playing that here instead, and then was able to play 30 second hyperbullet here as well. Meanwhile, Chess.com released their new variants server and that brought me back to play Fog of War while variants here seem to have died - I see very few game seeks in the blitz time controls that I prefer. I eventually started playing a bit of 1 minute bullet again over on there and just accepted that I would lose time scrambles in an annoying fashion. I'm a part of a few clubs over there as well - it's not something I went out and looked for (and I've never done so here) but I happened to do so over the years and I'm happy to play in the occasional daily chess tournaments that get organised - very different pacing but in the context of the overall contest I enjoy it. I've never played a longer time control game here - it's not the format itself that interests me, but contributing to an overall team result. The two places have very different vibes and can co-exist. They're very much focused on introducing chess to new players and I think they've come to understand that it's okay if some of those new people will leave them and go elsewhere, like here - enough of those new people will stay with Chess.com for it to be worthwhile for them to continue to do that. Lichess does a great job at catering to the interests of its existing user base - that's one of the strengths of the open source model, but I feel like sometimes that shades over into a sense of self righteousness that frankly I find unpleasant, and which pops up in any "lichess vs chess.com" discussion, in either site's forums.
#36

I prefer lichess.

But I do have a chess.com account. The main reason is that correspondence / daily chess is nearly impossible here. At least on my level. A much smaller player's pool compared to chess.com, too many abandoned games from people who apparently just get bored with their games. If you check my profile I am about 2300 in correspondence chess. Compare it to my blitz rating and you'll see that something is just not right.

There are a couple of other reasons I still want a chess.com account, but they are not important enough to mention here.

I prefer lichess. But I do have a chess.com account. The main reason is that correspondence / daily chess is nearly impossible here. At least on my level. A much smaller player's pool compared to chess.com, too many abandoned games from people who apparently just get bored with their games. If you check my profile I am about 2300 in correspondence chess. Compare it to my blitz rating and you'll see that something is just not right. There are a couple of other reasons I still want a chess.com account, but they are not important enough to mention here.
#37

I don't have a good computer so I can't run chess.com effectively. It takes me 10-20 seconds to even make a move in a game and it's just not a good user experience for me

Therefore the only websites I use is lichess.org, lidraughts.org and lishogi.org and I can only play board games :)

I don't have a good computer so I can't run chess.com effectively. It takes me 10-20 seconds to even make a move in a game and it's just not a good user experience for me Therefore the only websites I use is lichess.org, lidraughts.org and lishogi.org and I can only play board games :)
#38

@Noob_F0X1 said in #27:

Give me your name (on chess.com)

PA153

@Noob_F0X1 said in #27: > Give me your name (on chess.com) PA153
#39

I like the CAPTCHA here, where you have to make a move in order to prove you're human. I don't know how that works though, because wouldn't a bot be able to easily do the same?

I like the CAPTCHA here, where you have to make a move in order to prove you're human. I don't know how that works though, because wouldn't a bot be able to easily do the same?
#40

@dogsnob said in #22:

Do not compare the sites. That is not allowed here. It will get locked.

Perfectly reasonable topic for discussion on chess.com however

I'm not comparing them though; I'm just asking how many who use this site also use 'Chess.com'.

@dogsnob said in #22: > Do not compare the sites. That is not allowed here. It will get locked. > > Perfectly reasonable topic for discussion on chess.com however I'm not comparing them though; I'm just asking how many who use this site also use 'Chess.com'.