In terms of rating, is it accurate? Whenever I play in Chess.com it seemed as if the players were tougher. Is it just because there's more players there? My friend doesn't want to play lichess because he said the ratings are just there to make people feel good about themselves since they're probably rated much much lower. Is there any truth to this?
Your friend is an idiot.
The entirety of the world wide web is inflated.. excess information overloads imagination. The money is inflated and the people are too; in time Earth will burst this bubble bringing balance anew.
#3 Indeed he is.
Every single rating system is worthless of consideration, there is no pride in that. It's a system we use to get users paired.
If you want to know how you compare to the rest of the chess population in strength, you don't look at your rating but you rather look at this. http://en.lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/blitz
Every single rating system is worthless of consideration, there is no pride in that. It's a system we use to get users paired.
If you want to know how you compare to the rest of the chess population in strength, you don't look at your rating but you rather look at this. http://en.lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/blitz
Ratings are not comparable.
Percentiles are comparable, my percentiles closely resemble those reached at chess.com. Recently when here was a server outage I played at chess.com a few games. My rating rose, because in the meantime there was rating inflation at chess.com due to new players now being allowed to choose their initial rating. After playing a few games my rating rose more than 100 points, but even this was not enough to put back my percentile to where it was when I left because of the rating inflation that took place.
People at chess.com and here are of the same strength. And the same as at ChessCube and all popular sites, their pool is of the same strength. I know this from experience.
Percentiles are comparable, my percentiles closely resemble those reached at chess.com. Recently when here was a server outage I played at chess.com a few games. My rating rose, because in the meantime there was rating inflation at chess.com due to new players now being allowed to choose their initial rating. After playing a few games my rating rose more than 100 points, but even this was not enough to put back my percentile to where it was when I left because of the rating inflation that took place.
People at chess.com and here are of the same strength. And the same as at ChessCube and all popular sites, their pool is of the same strength. I know this from experience.
Ratings are not absolute. The actual numbers are meaningless. Only the difference between two ratings is significant.
Dio, you are a poet.
rise_UIED, you are a poet.
To go just a little further than Clarkey's great explanation (#2), this is a very good and fairly concise read, by Glickman himself.
http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko.pdf
Don't be put off by the equations, it's not necessary to understand them in full detail.
In addition to Clarkey's post, it helps understand why rating deviation is an interesting factor in determining ratings and the influence of time or frequency of play thereupon (and so the answer to "why am I not on the leaderboard anymore?", which regularly pops up).
http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko.pdf
Don't be put off by the equations, it's not necessary to understand them in full detail.
In addition to Clarkey's post, it helps understand why rating deviation is an interesting factor in determining ratings and the influence of time or frequency of play thereupon (and so the answer to "why am I not on the leaderboard anymore?", which regularly pops up).
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.