- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Rating difference between LiChess and Chess.com is about 100 points? (Chess.com Elo is lower)

#41

@XsYyLaxa said in #38:

Yes you can. The exercise is simple, as I laid it out. The playing strength of Lichess vs Chess com can be compared if you have the same people playing on both sites.

You're missing the point: neither site measures playing strength. Even if both sites have the exact same pool of players, there is no reason to think you will have the same rating on both sites. It is very likely you wouldn't. (Which is completely hypothetical, because both sites don't even have the same pool of players.)

You're really comparing apples and oranges.

If you translate inches and feet to, say, meters: it makes sense. It makes sense, because both measure the same quanity.

There is no such thing as an independent measure of chess playing strength. There just isn't. If you say 'my chess playing strength is 2000', it is completely meaningless. It has no value outside some specific rating pool, and it's not actually a measure of playing strength. Like I said: it's a measure of relative performance within some specific rating pool.

It would be cool if you could measure playing strength in the same way you can measure running speed or body length. Here's the problem: that's fundamentally impossible. And that means that it really makes no sense to compare different rating pools.

@XsYyLaxa said in #38: > Yes you can. The exercise is simple, as I laid it out. The playing strength of Lichess vs Chess com can be compared if you have the same people playing on both sites. You're missing the point: neither site measures playing strength. Even if both sites have the exact same pool of players, there is no reason to think you will have the same rating on both sites. It is very likely you wouldn't. (Which is completely hypothetical, because both sites don't even have the same pool of players.) You're really comparing apples and oranges. If you translate inches and feet to, say, meters: it makes sense. It makes sense, because both measure the same quanity. There is no such thing as an independent measure of chess playing strength. There just isn't. If you say 'my chess playing strength is 2000', it is completely meaningless. It has no value outside some specific rating pool, and it's not actually a measure of playing strength. Like I said: it's a measure of relative performance within some specific rating pool. It would be cool if you could measure playing strength in the same way you can measure running speed or body length. Here's the problem: that's fundamentally impossible. And that means that it really makes no sense to compare different rating pools.
#42

You have to look at this from the POV of a server.

  1. These ratings are just numbers to determine which player is better.

  2. If you have a server with only 3 players of different strengths, you would only need 3 numbers. -1, 0, 1; or 1, 2, 3; or 1000, 1500, 2000; etc. It's up to you. As long as the guy with the higher number regularly beats the guys with the lower numbers, your numbering system is accurate within your server.

  3. Elo based ratings like Glicko have this rule of thumb, if someone is rated +200, chances are he'd beat the lower rated guy 75% of the time.

  4. Chesscom is a major gateway to chess for new players, as such, there are a whole lot more of weaker players on chesscom.

  5. Now, here's, where we put on our server hat. Remember that Elo systems peg +200 as 75% score rate. Now if you're chesscom with millions of newbies coming in, how would you rate all those newbies?

  6. Since there are a lot more players in chesscom compared to other servers, they need more numbers.

  7. It's either they extend to the top, or they extend to the bottom.

  8. If they pegged the newbies at 1500, as traditional, the numbers would extend upwards. Since there are a whole lot of really weak players, you'd find someone who can easily beat those new guys 75% of the time, extending the rating to 1700. And then you can find a lot of guys who can easily beat those 1700, extending to 1900. Etc. Pretty soon, guys like Nakamura would end up with 4000.

  9. What's a server to do? They decided to peg the newbies at 800. That way, guys like Nakamura would have a reasonable 3200 rating.

  10. Lichess, since they don't have a massive base like chesscom, does not have that problem.

  11. Lichess starts newbies at 1500, as per tradition. And then if you extend +200 75% score rate, you also get a reasonable 3200 rating at the top.

  12. So it's useless to compare ratings across sites. As long as someone rated +200 compared to you on any site, within that site, beats you 75% of the time, the ratings are accurate.

You have to look at this from the POV of a server. 1. These ratings are just numbers to determine which player is better. 2. If you have a server with only 3 players of different strengths, you would only need 3 numbers. -1, 0, 1; or 1, 2, 3; or 1000, 1500, 2000; etc. It's up to you. As long as the guy with the higher number regularly beats the guys with the lower numbers, your numbering system is accurate within your server. 3. Elo based ratings like Glicko have this rule of thumb, if someone is rated +200, chances are he'd beat the lower rated guy 75% of the time. 4. Chesscom is a major gateway to chess for new players, as such, there are a whole lot more of weaker players on chesscom. 5. Now, here's, where we put on our server hat. Remember that Elo systems peg +200 as 75% score rate. Now if you're chesscom with millions of newbies coming in, how would you rate all those newbies? 6. Since there are a lot more players in chesscom compared to other servers, they need more numbers. 7. It's either they extend to the top, or they extend to the bottom. 8. If they pegged the newbies at 1500, as traditional, the numbers would extend upwards. Since there are a whole lot of really weak players, you'd find someone who can easily beat those new guys 75% of the time, extending the rating to 1700. And then you can find a lot of guys who can easily beat those 1700, extending to 1900. Etc. Pretty soon, guys like Nakamura would end up with 4000. 9. What's a server to do? They decided to peg the newbies at 800. That way, guys like Nakamura would have a reasonable 3200 rating. 10. Lichess, since they don't have a massive base like chesscom, does not have that problem. 11. Lichess starts newbies at 1500, as per tradition. And then if you extend +200 75% score rate, you also get a reasonable 3200 rating at the top. 12. So it's useless to compare ratings across sites. As long as someone rated +200 compared to you on any site, within that site, beats you 75% of the time, the ratings are accurate.
#43

chess.com is getting so huge, I wonder whether it will crash completely one day soon. Its not unusual to see over half a million people playing these days. Technical glitches seem to be very common, such as "server error" - I am no computer expert but suspect that the system is overloaded and on its last legs.

On this site I am usually just about in the top 20% with a ranking around 4,000 for classical. On chess.com I play 60/0 where I am somehow in the top 4% with a ranking of..............................................569,303. Crazy.

Just hoping that they don't all move to Lichess if it does self destruct.

chess.com is getting so huge, I wonder whether it will crash completely one day soon. Its not unusual to see over half a million people playing these days. Technical glitches seem to be very common, such as "server error" - I am no computer expert but suspect that the system is overloaded and on its last legs. On this site I am usually just about in the top 20% with a ranking around 4,000 for classical. On chess.com I play 60/0 where I am somehow in the top 4% with a ranking of..............................................569,303. Crazy. Just hoping that they don't all move to Lichess if it does self destruct.
#44

Yeah, they are crashes time and again.

Actually, I reached 2348 Blitz today over there which means percentile 99.8% resp. rank 7000 approx.

Yeah, they are crashes time and again. Actually, I reached 2348 Blitz today over there which means percentile 99.8% resp. rank 7000 approx.
#45

Peak ratings for the 2

Bullet 2000 chess com and 2300 lichess
Blitz 1900 chess com 2100 lichess
Rapid 1800 chess com 2100 lichess

I have like 13k less chess com games by the way

Peak ratings for the 2 Bullet 2000 chess com and 2300 lichess Blitz 1900 chess com 2100 lichess Rapid 1800 chess com 2100 lichess I have like 13k less chess com games by the way
#46

@Molurus said in #41:

Even if both sites have the exact same pool of players, there is no reason to think you will have the same rating on both sites.

A moment's reflection would indicate the absurdity of this statement. It's much too strong. Aside from standard statistical problems like drift in a small population, if you have the same players and measuring the same Elo (let's put aside the Glicko vs classical ways of measuring Elo, which I believe in the long run converge), then two different pools of the same players would yield, statistically, the same average rating, in the long run. Why wouldn't it? It's not like people try harder at Chess com vs LiChess.

But let's just agree to disagree.

@Molurus said in #41: > Even if both sites have the exact same pool of players, there is no reason to think you will have the same rating on both sites. A moment's reflection would indicate the absurdity of this statement. It's much too strong. Aside from standard statistical problems like drift in a small population, if you have the same players and measuring the same Elo (let's put aside the Glicko vs classical ways of measuring Elo, which I believe in the long run converge), then two different pools of the same players would yield, statistically, the same average rating, in the long run. Why wouldn't it? It's not like people try harder at Chess com vs LiChess. But let's just agree to disagree.
#47

@shiningstar12345 said in #45:

Peak ratings for the 2

Bullet 2000 chess com and 2300 lichess
Blitz 1900 chess com 2100 lichess
Rapid 1800 chess com 2100 lichess

I have like 13k less chess com games by the way

Wow, impressed by your Lichess Elo. Could it be that 13k games ago, you were a weaker player when you played at Chess dot com? If you went back today you might slay them.

I found psychology plays a role. If you think Chess dot com is tough, then you will blunder more. Recently when I went back and played there, I quickly blew past my old limits since my attitude was it's the same patzers like me, and I was right. It also doesn't hurt that I'm about 100 points or so stronger than a few years ago. A few years ago I feared a 1900 Chess dot com player, now I laugh when they are heavily up material and can't convert the win (it's happened to me too, but I still laugh).

I also have a sneaky suspicion--I don't know why--that there's more cheating at Chess dot com but that's a thread for another day.

@shiningstar12345 said in #45: > Peak ratings for the 2 > > Bullet 2000 chess com and 2300 lichess > Blitz 1900 chess com 2100 lichess > Rapid 1800 chess com 2100 lichess > > I have like 13k less chess com games by the way Wow, impressed by your Lichess Elo. Could it be that 13k games ago, you were a weaker player when you played at Chess dot com? If you went back today you might slay them. I found psychology plays a role. If you think Chess dot com is tough, then you will blunder more. Recently when I went back and played there, I quickly blew past my old limits since my attitude was it's the same patzers like me, and I was right. It also doesn't hurt that I'm about 100 points or so stronger than a few years ago. A few years ago I feared a 1900 Chess dot com player, now I laugh when they are heavily up material and can't convert the win (it's happened to me too, but I still laugh). I also have a sneaky suspicion--I don't know why--that there's more cheating at Chess dot com but that's a thread for another day.
#48

chess.com ratings tend to be lower than lichess ratings. At chess.com, players start out at 1200, whereas on lichess they start out at 1500. That means that, even if both sites had the same pool of players, average players would tend to be about 300 points higher on lichess than on chess.com.(according to Google)

chess.com ratings tend to be lower than lichess ratings. At chess.com, players start out at 1200, whereas on lichess they start out at 1500. That means that, even if both sites had the same pool of players, average players would tend to be about 300 points higher on lichess than on chess.com.(according to Google)
#49

It doesn't matter to me personally since I don't care about the players on chess.com since I don't play there. I only compare myself in the lichess.org system, and analyze my games here within the site's context.

It doesn't matter to me personally since I don't care about the players on chess.com since I don't play there. I only compare myself in the lichess.org system, and analyze my games here within the site's context.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.