The ratings are definitely different, especially in the lower ranks. For one the lowest rating starts well below 800. I'm pretty new to chess and have been playing games on Chess.com for about 7 months and I haven't been able to get above a 700 in classical 10 minute games. But here I am around 1400 in 10 minute games. I don't think the same would apply to higher rated players though. It still looks like the GMs are around 2400+ on both sites.
Different results for... Everyone. Someone will come along with charts and graphs, having downloaded every game played at both sites and make comparisons, predictions within +/- 100 points, formulas of how a rating at x = a rating at y. You can toss it all in the garbage.
Very interesting post. I didn't like the interface and thankfully I found this site first. When I played at ICC some titled players were in the 1800s lol. I was wondering if the difference is that much of a gap as I see lichess and chess.com taking over online chess soon.
Prediction: ICC has been the staple and will remain. As far as social media goes... chesscom will remain #1 Playing a game of chess... lichess will become #1 in the near future... as long as they don't mess it up with ill advised implementations. thibault seems to think he has all the answers, now that the site is mainstream. But I wonder. Mistakes in judgement now may well have effects not forseen.