Fellow players, do you think that lichess is too kind to us with their ratings? Secondly, are there better players on chess,com or lichess?
1. no, you should not compare ratings across sites. It's just a number, on its own it's meaningless.
2. chess.com has a stronger pool and more titled players play there
2. chess.com has a stronger pool and more titled players play there
to further clarify @JasonNewst point 1.
Lichess initial rating 1500 and chess.com 1200 which will result median rating of 1500 and 1200 regardless of skill level of player. whether it woudl be all pre-school people un-able to see check or grandmasters
Lichess initial rating 1500 and chess.com 1200 which will result median rating of 1500 and 1200 regardless of skill level of player. whether it woudl be all pre-school people un-able to see check or grandmasters
Yes Lichess ratings are too high. And there's no excuse for it, despite the avalanche of people any thread like this tends to generate who say you can't compare ratings on different sites. Nonsense, give me one good reason why they can't try to make Lichess ratings more in line with FIDE or chess dot com? I've heard a lot of hand waving on this subject but never one single good reason.
Of course it's not going to be exact ratings are always approximate , that's not a good reason, but they can be roughly in line if it was desired.
All's they have to do is a simple calculation adjustment and boom just like that, they will be in line.
Of course it's not going to be exact ratings are always approximate , that's not a good reason, but they can be roughly in line if it was desired.
All's they have to do is a simple calculation adjustment and boom just like that, they will be in line.
@ThighBald you can make them more in line but whats the point? And even after aligning them it woud about +-200 points estimate.
Learn to live fact that relative measurements are relativ
Learn to live fact that relative measurements are relativ
My rating on chess.com is 1080, on Freechess 1202 and on Lichess 1507. So Lichess has mutch higher ratings. My Fide rating is 1423. So rating means nothing. Sometimes i won games against 2000+ players and somtimes i lost games against 1300-1400 players.
Which shows that lichess rating is closest to you FIDE? so whats the problem? Yeah sometimes surprises happen if thet woudl not we would not need a rating we coudl just assign ordinal number. I won in OTB a person 300 pts stronger than me suffered a draw to persn 300 points weaker than. In lichess tournament won 2000opponent Though he used this Berserkin thingy to handicap himself.
500 points difference does not mean never. 400 points means thatn on the averat weaker player will collect about one11th of the poinst 600 pts would means somwher round 1/60. Not zero just something small
500 points difference does not mean never. 400 points means thatn on the averat weaker player will collect about one11th of the poinst 600 pts would means somwher round 1/60. Not zero just something small
@petri999
The point is so they can mean something If you say people don't want to see how well they can do at chess or anything else I call absolute bull$h1t.
"even after aligning them it woud about +-200 points estimate."
I knew someone would raise this stupid argument so I answered it already in my post, did you read?, First, you exaggerate the variance. Secondly, yes ratings are approximate. No measurement is exact. Tell me any measurement in any field that is exact. If you can I will give $1000000. But measurements as inexact as they are are used all the time. Stupid argument.
"Learn to live fact that relative measurements are relativ"
Of course they are relative. You need opponents to compare against. Who can't live with the fact they are relative?
I'll give you a hint, it's not me.
It's you.
The point is so they can mean something If you say people don't want to see how well they can do at chess or anything else I call absolute bull$h1t.
"even after aligning them it woud about +-200 points estimate."
I knew someone would raise this stupid argument so I answered it already in my post, did you read?, First, you exaggerate the variance. Secondly, yes ratings are approximate. No measurement is exact. Tell me any measurement in any field that is exact. If you can I will give $1000000. But measurements as inexact as they are are used all the time. Stupid argument.
"Learn to live fact that relative measurements are relativ"
Of course they are relative. You need opponents to compare against. Who can't live with the fact they are relative?
I'll give you a hint, it's not me.
It's you.
Why should lichess go all this trouble? From where to get reliable data for the calibration? And why compare playing short time controls on a flat monitor with long time controls on a 3d board?
Much effort, little benefit.
Much effort, little benefit.
@ThighBald
It seems you think there's some sort of absolute 'rating' that's true representative of a chess player's strength and any website should calculate and adjust ratings in such a way that the players' ratings are as close as possible to their 'real' rating which you consider to be the "FIDE rating".
Rating does not work like that at all, I mean mathematically it would require lots of manipulation and tampering to artificially create something that only looks good to you but then has become completely devoid of meaning.
Here:
Player........................Fide................Lichess..........chess.com
Magnus Carlsen......2887................2837................3047
Nakamura................2900..................---...................3271
Firouzja.....................2750................2817................3179
Naroditsky................2625................2742................3161
Gregori Oparin........2628................2903................2975
Kovalev.....................2487................2864................2894
Abasov......................2544................2804................2847
Apparently lichess blitz ratings aren't as inflated when it comes to top players even though the initial rating on lichess is 300 points higher! So why does this happen? because so many factors affect ratings. There's really no meaningful correlation here other than stronger players tend to have higher ratings compared to others in the same pool.
It seems you think there's some sort of absolute 'rating' that's true representative of a chess player's strength and any website should calculate and adjust ratings in such a way that the players' ratings are as close as possible to their 'real' rating which you consider to be the "FIDE rating".
Rating does not work like that at all, I mean mathematically it would require lots of manipulation and tampering to artificially create something that only looks good to you but then has become completely devoid of meaning.
Here:
Player........................Fide................Lichess..........chess.com
Magnus Carlsen......2887................2837................3047
Nakamura................2900..................---...................3271
Firouzja.....................2750................2817................3179
Naroditsky................2625................2742................3161
Gregori Oparin........2628................2903................2975
Kovalev.....................2487................2864................2894
Abasov......................2544................2804................2847
Apparently lichess blitz ratings aren't as inflated when it comes to top players even though the initial rating on lichess is 300 points higher! So why does this happen? because so many factors affect ratings. There's really no meaningful correlation here other than stronger players tend to have higher ratings compared to others in the same pool.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.