That's true, I'm 2050-2100 lichess, around 1800 on chess.com. Never played a rated tournament but played some rated players who were 1400-1500 rated USCF, and they were roughly my strength, maybe a bit better. Still the Delta bot, easy mode, was much, much better than me.
I think it depends on the pool to which you're comparing. Being top 2% of all programmers is not so impressive if you include everyone who's ever taken an Intro class. Top 2% of people who do it for a living is much more significant.
I'm in a similar boat as the other posters (2050-2100 lichess, 1400 USCF). The median active rating for USCF is around 1200 and likely much higher if you don't include scholastic players, so if we compare against the OTB pool, "2000 lichess" is probably closer to top 50% than 2%
I mean, if you’re in the top 3 percent of anything, yes that’s pretty good, but not unbelievably so, especially in the field of chess. If for instance you randomly put together a classroom full of chess players, there’s decent odds one of them is better than top 3%. Two classrooms and it’s almost a certainty.
Put another way, looking at chess.com users, there are ~6 million people who would count as the top 3 percent. Difficult to achieve, yes, but if 6 million people can achieve it, it’s not really a “humble brag,” it’s just a statement.
I heard it's never intended to be the same since initial rating for Lichess and chess.com respectively is 1500 and 1200. So they should have 300 rating difference on average. Quite fitting with what the other commenter claims actually.
I don’t think it would average out to a 300 elo difference simply based on the starting rating being 300 apart.
If everything else was the same, and people play enough games they will average out to the same elo.
The difference is caused by many factors. People don’t play enough games to sink to their real elo, the player pool is different, and you gain/lose fewer points per game with Lichess’s elo algorithm.
ELO is relative. There's no reason why a GM ELO should be 2800 or 280 or 28000. So it's all decided by ELO of every other person. So if the ELO gain/loss calculation and audience of Lichess and chess.com are exactly the same, because of different starting position, I don't think they'd converge to the same ELO but instead will differ by starting position difference.
Also I can't really prove it mathematically but I guess average ELO would also hover on the starting ELO. Because I can't see why it would hover anywhere else and any ELO gained would be lost by someone else.
That's true, I'm 2050-2100 lichess, around 1800 on chess.com. Never played a rated tournament but played some rated players who were 1400-1500 rated USCF, and they were roughly my strength, maybe a bit better. Still the Delta bot, easy mode, was much, much better than me.
Casually just in the top 2-3 percent of chess players globally world wide humble brag. I'm not that good at it, just a little bit!
I think it depends on the pool to which you're comparing. Being top 2% of all programmers is not so impressive if you include everyone who's ever taken an Intro class. Top 2% of people who do it for a living is much more significant.
I'm in a similar boat as the other posters (2050-2100 lichess, 1400 USCF). The median active rating for USCF is around 1200 and likely much higher if you don't include scholastic players, so if we compare against the OTB pool, "2000 lichess" is probably closer to top 50% than 2%
I mean, if you’re in the top 3 percent of anything, yes that’s pretty good, but not unbelievably so, especially in the field of chess. If for instance you randomly put together a classroom full of chess players, there’s decent odds one of them is better than top 3%. Two classrooms and it’s almost a certainty.
Put another way, looking at chess.com users, there are ~6 million people who would count as the top 3 percent. Difficult to achieve, yes, but if 6 million people can achieve it, it’s not really a “humble brag,” it’s just a statement.
1 reply →
It's still significantly stronger than the average online chess player
I heard it's never intended to be the same since initial rating for Lichess and chess.com respectively is 1500 and 1200. So they should have 300 rating difference on average. Quite fitting with what the other commenter claims actually.
I don’t think it would average out to a 300 elo difference simply based on the starting rating being 300 apart.
If everything else was the same, and people play enough games they will average out to the same elo.
The difference is caused by many factors. People don’t play enough games to sink to their real elo, the player pool is different, and you gain/lose fewer points per game with Lichess’s elo algorithm.
ELO is relative. There's no reason why a GM ELO should be 2800 or 280 or 28000. So it's all decided by ELO of every other person. So if the ELO gain/loss calculation and audience of Lichess and chess.com are exactly the same, because of different starting position, I don't think they'd converge to the same ELO but instead will differ by starting position difference.
Also I can't really prove it mathematically but I guess average ELO would also hover on the starting ELO. Because I can't see why it would hover anywhere else and any ELO gained would be lost by someone else.
1 reply →