In here, I can defeat 1200s.
While in Chess.com I lost a rapid game to a 700.
While in Chess.com I lost a rapid game to a 700.
lichess.org/page/rating-systems Lichess uses a different rating system than chess.com (it's more accurate).
In my opinion, lichess is overrated by 400 points and chess.com is overrated by 200 points. it an accurate way to calculate fide rating. For example lichess biltz is 2300 chess.com biltz is 2100 and maybe fide rating of 1900. You can find many cheaters in this sites so the rating isn't so accurate. Based on the numbers of games I played, my lichess rating is 200 points higher than my chess.com rating.
So I currently have 600-700 FIDE. Disappointing.
There no such thing as overrated. Ratings are relative i.e meaningful only within pool. Since default starting rating in chess.com is 1200 and lichess is 1500 this created difference of ratings of about 300 points. Minuscule difference in rating algorithm is pretty meaningless.
Since the pools is in constant change median of rating will float around starting rating.
And for OP case is special since he is at lower end of players hence no result is truly surprising. Most of my games are decided by people blundering a piece - or two. Around 1000 even more so. so every now and then lot weaker player wins just because opponent blunders first or worst.
Since the pools is in constant change median of rating will float around starting rating.
And for OP case is special since he is at lower end of players hence no result is truly surprising. Most of my games are decided by people blundering a piece - or two. Around 1000 even more so. so every now and then lot weaker player wins just because opponent blunders first or worst.
They are paired according to the strength of their opponents. The lower the rating, you can say they are causal players and unrated player. You start to see titled player at around 1900 rating. It truth that most beginners don't usually play online chess cos they keep losing.
I just would like to add to the explanation below that ratings have no meaning-only rating differences. So where the scale is centered is immaterial.
@petri999 said in #6:
> There no such thing as overrated. Ratings are relative i.e meaningful only within pool. Since default starting rating in chess.com is 1200 and lichess is 1500 this created difference of ratings of about 300 points. Minuscule difference in rating algorithm is pretty meaningless.
>
> Since the pools is in constant change median of rating will float around starting rating.
>
> And for OP case is special since he is at lower end of players hence no result is truly surprising. Most of my games are decided by people blundering a piece - or two. Around 1000 even more so. so every now and then lot weaker player wins just because opponent blunders first or worst.
@petri999 said in #6:
> There no such thing as overrated. Ratings are relative i.e meaningful only within pool. Since default starting rating in chess.com is 1200 and lichess is 1500 this created difference of ratings of about 300 points. Minuscule difference in rating algorithm is pretty meaningless.
>
> Since the pools is in constant change median of rating will float around starting rating.
>
> And for OP case is special since he is at lower end of players hence no result is truly surprising. Most of my games are decided by people blundering a piece - or two. Around 1000 even more so. so every now and then lot weaker player wins just because opponent blunders first or worst.
you lost one rapid game? im sorry for that and i think it proves your point :P
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.