Would you agree with the theory that 2000 rated player from chess com would be 2200 on lichess?
Yes. Very close to being true. I'd say 2200 on lichess is about 2050 on chess.com at blitz.
Yes, give or take....
I'm 1850 on chezz.com and 2100 on Lichess
yep around that rating im 2200 on lichess and 1900 chess.com
...but why?
I cant say 1600-1900 players on chess com are better than here. They bluder more or less the same as "average" players from that range. I did beat 2290 and then lost many to 1800-1900. I guess their rating system is different, it is not like they are stronger, in my opinion.
Another annoying thing is the speed of pieces. Here pieces are moving faster as time format is shorter, but on chess it is the same, so I had time troubles every time. Premoving is weird, once you do it you cant undo it ( at least I couldnt:"_)
No, I disagree that you can objectively say that one rating will accurately tell you what the other rating will be without the player playing on the other site.
The reasons are:
1) Both sites use different rating systems. Lichess uses Glicko 2, while chesscom uses Glicko 1. This means that both ratings are created using different formulas, and any comparison is subjective.
2) In regards to point 1, the Glicko 1 system is not used correctly by chesscom. They allow you to choose your starting point, but the system requires the same 1500 starting point that Glicko 2 does. By not using the system correctly, the rating itself is less accurate and pairings will suffer.
3) The rating pools are vastly different. chesscom has more strength at the top, because they pay the strength to be there, than Lichess. This makes it harder to progress at different points in the rating ladder, which means that each point has different knowledge gaps at similar ratings. 2200 on lichess is nothing compared to a 2000 on chesscom for this reason. When a 2200 plays a 2200 on Lichess, it is likely they are not a titled player and have much missing knowledge wise; while on the other side, you are facing real strength at that level because of the titled players presence.
Even if everything I stated was not true, it would be pointless to compare. At the end of the day your online rating is meaningless, and not even a true representation of your strength over all. In fact, no rating can truly represent your strength as a player. All it can do is tell you with some accuracy if you have better chances to win a game against another player in the specific pool the system is judging.
@LinearStork
I can agree with a first half of your post with the rest I don't.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.