Why it is easier to improve rating in "Lichess" than other sites!? • page 1/1 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

Hi guys! I am just wondering about this!?

See https://lichess.org/page/rating-systems for more details. Lichess uses a different rating system than chess.com and chess24.com, so the average rating here is higher than on other sites.

#3

Abdo_99

#4

#2 @Francis920 Thanks for sharing. Now it is more clear.

VINCENTYU edited

#5

The more games you play, the less rating you will receive.
At the beginning, if you beat a strong player like for example, 2445 you could get +897 rating.
But if you played 2984 games and beat a 2445 you would get like, +26 rating.

This is just how the rating system works.

The more games you play, the less rating you will receive. At the beginning, if you beat a strong player like for example, 2445 you could get +897 rating. But if you played 2984 games and beat a 2445 you would get like, +26 rating. This is just how the rating system works.

Less cheater?

The thing to know about ratings is that they are mathematical tools meant to judge the relative strengths of individuals in a population. That means they're only useful in comparing people in the same population (rating pool). A high rating on one website would not necessarily translate to a high rating on another website. One of the reasons why it might be easier to get a higher rating on lichess compared to say chesscom or chess24 is that the overall population on lichess is weaker than on these other websites.

For the sake of argument imagine you had two pools of players, one consisting of only grandmasters and the other consisting of only beginners. Every member of the grandmaster pool is considerably stronger than that of the beginner pool. Yet, the rating distribution graphs would look nearly identical, by virtue of how the Elo/Glicko systems work. The highest rated player in the beginner pool would still lose every game to the lowest rated player in the grandmaster pool. Expand the argument to larger groups of players and you'll find that the logic remains sound.

The thing to know about ratings is that they are mathematical tools meant to judge the relative strengths of individuals in a population. That means they're only useful in comparing people in the same population (rating pool). A high rating on one website would not necessarily translate to a high rating on another website. One of the reasons why it might be easier to get a higher rating on lichess compared to say chesscom or chess24 is that the overall population on lichess is weaker than on these other websites. For the sake of argument imagine you had two pools of players, one consisting of only grandmasters and the other consisting of only beginners. Every member of the grandmaster pool is considerably stronger than that of the beginner pool. Yet, the rating distribution graphs would look nearly identical, by virtue of how the Elo/Glicko systems work. The highest rated player in the beginner pool would still lose every game to the lowest rated player in the grandmaster pool. Expand the argument to larger groups of players and you'll find that the logic remains sound.