lichess.org
Donate

How did I lose 300 points of playing strength?

HommeSaouledited

Have you played many games on chess.com ? Like more than a 100?

I suspect that your rating was not representative of your real strength.

Or you had a very bad luck and bad form. A suggestion to come back is to
-only play rated or on your main account when you're feeling good and,
-stop for the day or half-day at the first defeat.
Do that for a few weeks and you should climb up again if you truly was at that level.
I doubt people can lose 300 points of real strength overnight (unless there is a medical reason), so it was probably temporary.

Have you played many games on chess.com ? Like more than a 100? I suspect that your rating was not representative of your real strength. Or you had a very bad luck and bad form. A suggestion to come back is to -only play rated or on your main account when you're feeling good and, -stop for the day or half-day at the first defeat. Do that for a few weeks and you should climb up again if you truly was at that level. I doubt people can lose 300 points of real strength overnight (unless there is a medical reason), so it was probably temporary.
TheDifferenceOfTier5

@tpr said ^

You only have 1867 blitz here.
The other site is sometimes named cheat.com.

There are not many cheaters.

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/2Zkn2Dh9) > You only have 1867 blitz here. > The other site is sometimes named cheat.com. There are not many cheaters.
forsoothplays

A chesscom ratings are suspect to me, not because I'm a Lichess fanboy, but after the following anecdote:

I went to a local casual chess club to play some blitz and rapid. I end up playing against somebody new, and he's not a patzer but the skill gap is still very obvious. I could tell by the way he played and his body language that he took his chess seriously and was a little disappointed, so I said, "Don't feel bad about it. On Lichess rapid I'm usually 90th percentile or higher."

Then his eyes grow wide and he replies, "Only 90th percentile? On chesscom, my rapid rating is usually 95th percentile or higher."

I'm not trying to throw shade on the guy; like I said, he wasn't a pushover, but after a couple more games it was clear that I was "big bro" in spite of the fact that his chesscom rating indicated to the contrary.

Ever since I don't take chesscom ratings seriously.

A chesscom ratings are suspect to me, not because I'm a Lichess fanboy, but after the following anecdote: I went to a local casual chess club to play some blitz and rapid. I end up playing against somebody new, and he's not a patzer but the skill gap is still very obvious. I could tell by the way he played and his body language that he took his chess seriously and was a little disappointed, so I said, "Don't feel bad about it. On Lichess rapid I'm usually 90th percentile or higher." Then his eyes grow wide and he replies, "Only 90th percentile? On chesscom, my rapid rating is usually 95th percentile or higher." I'm not trying to throw shade on the guy; like I said, he wasn't a pushover, but after a couple more games it was clear that I was "big bro" in spite of the fact that his chesscom rating indicated to the contrary. Ever since I don't take chesscom ratings seriously.
kindaspongeyedited

@RabbitSamurai said in #7:

... Great analogy, except this is chess. Do you think blitz is like gambling? I think if you're used to playing at a certain strength for a long time, you can certainly expect that performance in the future to some capacity, right? ...

Except that (at least in my opinion) a 3+0 game IS a lot like gambling. Take this game for example:
[Event "rated blitz game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/ttojKYOl"] [Date "2026.10.20"] [White "RabbitSamurai"] [Black "sambukapleer"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "180+0"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] 1 e4 e5 2 f4 d6 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 Bc4 Bg4 5 c3 Nf6 6 d3 Be7 7 O-O O-O 8 f5 Bxf3 9 Qxf3 d5 10 Bb3 dxe4 11 dxe4 Na5 12 Bc2 c6
You are winning. You feel that you SHOULD be winning. It's perfectly natural to want to bring more pieces into the attack. 13 Bg5 is maybe not the best move in the world, but it certainly looks plausible. It's a 3+0 game. You aren't going to do any tree-of-analysis thing. ~2-second decisions are what one does from time to time in a 3+0 game. So, you forge ahead and
13...Qb6+.
Oops!

@RabbitSamurai said in #7: > ... Great analogy, except this is chess. Do you think blitz is like gambling? I think if you're used to playing at a certain strength for a long time, you can certainly expect that performance in the future to some capacity, right? ... Except that (at least in my opinion) a 3+0 game IS a lot like gambling. Take this game for example: [Event "rated blitz game"] [Site "https://lichess.org/ttojKYOl"] [Date "2026.10.20"] [White "RabbitSamurai"] [Black "sambukapleer"] [Variant "Standard"] [TimeControl "180+0"] [Annotator "lichess.org"] 1 e4 e5 2 f4 d6 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 Bc4 Bg4 5 c3 Nf6 6 d3 Be7 7 O-O O-O 8 f5 Bxf3 9 Qxf3 d5 10 Bb3 dxe4 11 dxe4 Na5 12 Bc2 c6 You are winning. You feel that you SHOULD be winning. It's perfectly natural to want to bring more pieces into the attack. 13 Bg5 is maybe not the best move in the world, but it certainly looks plausible. It's a 3+0 game. You aren't going to do any tree-of-analysis thing. ~2-second decisions are what one does from time to time in a 3+0 game. So, you forge ahead and 13...Qb6+. Oops!
RabbitSamurai

@HommeSaoul said ^

Have you played many games on chess.com ? Like more than a 100?

I suspect that your rating was not representative of your real strength.

Or you had a very bad luck and bad form. A suggestion to come back is to
-only play rated or on your main account when you're feeling good and,
-stop for the day or half-day at the first defeat.
Do that for a few weeks and you should climb up again if y...

There is actually a medical reason, some neurological issues I am dealing with, but I am trying not to blame it on that and use that as an excuse, because I can still calculate and play okay chess, I should not use that as an excuse.

The volume is huge, I have played tons of chess.com games and was over 1800 for a long while before this all happened.

Yeah, if I quit while I am ahead it does make a big difference, good advice.

@HommeSaoul said [^](/forum/redirect/post/4M7A5cIK) > Have you played many games on chess.com ? Like more than a 100? > > I suspect that your rating was not representative of your real strength. > > Or you had a very bad luck and bad form. A suggestion to come back is to > -only play rated or on your main account when you're feeling good and, > -stop for the day or half-day at the first defeat. > Do that for a few weeks and you should climb up again if y... There is actually a medical reason, some neurological issues I am dealing with, but I am trying not to blame it on that and use that as an excuse, because I can still calculate and play okay chess, I should not use that as an excuse. The volume is huge, I have played tons of chess.com games and was over 1800 for a long while before this all happened. Yeah, if I quit while I am ahead it does make a big difference, good advice.
RabbitSamurai

@kindaspongey said ^

... Great analogy, except this is chess. Do you think blitz is like gambling? I think if you're used to playing at a certain strength for a long time, you can certainly expect that performance in the future to some capacity, right? ...

Except that (at least in my opinion) a 3+0 game IS a lot like gambling. Take this game for example:
[Event "rated blitz game"] [Site "...

Yeah, that Qb6 was a shock to me, in a 3 0 game you simply don't have a ton of time to see every threat your opponent has. The challenge of blitz is being aware of your opponent's threats but still not using much of your clock for each move, it is obviously not easy.

Having said that, there is no way I could get to 2000 rapid and be over 1800 blitz on chess.com for a long period of time based on luck, right?

@kindaspongey said [^](/forum/redirect/post/QlEqT5Rx) > > ... Great analogy, except this is chess. Do you think blitz is like gambling? I think if you're used to playing at a certain strength for a long time, you can certainly expect that performance in the future to some capacity, right? ... > > Except that (at least in my opinion) a 3+0 game IS a lot like gambling. Take this game for example: > [Event "rated blitz game"] [Site "... Yeah, that Qb6 was a shock to me, in a 3 0 game you simply don't have a ton of time to see every threat your opponent has. The challenge of blitz is being aware of your opponent's threats but still not using much of your clock for each move, it is obviously not easy. Having said that, there is no way I could get to 2000 rapid and be over 1800 blitz on chess.com for a long period of time based on luck, right?
kindaspongeyedited

@RabbitSamurai said in #17:

... in a 3 0 game you simply don't have a ton of time to see every threat your opponent has. ... Having said that, there is no way I could get to 2000 rapid and be over 1800 blitz on chess.com for a long period of time based on luck, right?

The thing is, it isn’t just “luck”. One IS making decisions. On a specific move, think for 2 seconds, 4 seconds, what? Move a bishop next, maybe the knight, what? Lacking “a ton of time”, one is, to a large extent, obliged to guess what to do. The quality of one's guesses can be adversely affected by one's emotional state. It can mess with your head if you feel entitled to a certain result and it isn’t happening. A rating is not like a number stamped on your brain and guaranteeing a specific quality to your choices.

@RabbitSamurai said in #17: > ... in a 3 0 game you simply don't have a ton of time to see every threat your opponent has. ... Having said that, there is no way I could get to 2000 rapid and be over 1800 blitz on chess.com for a long period of time based on luck, right? The thing is, it isn’t just “luck”. One IS making decisions. On a specific move, think for 2 seconds, 4 seconds, what? Move a bishop next, maybe the knight, what? Lacking “a ton of time”, one is, to a large extent, obliged to guess what to do. The quality of one's guesses can be adversely affected by one's emotional state. It can mess with your head if you feel entitled to a certain result and it isn’t happening. A rating is not like a number stamped on your brain and guaranteeing a specific quality to your choices.
firebreathingpoptart

A lot of players in the middle ranges have discovered the plugins. They don't rise high because if they do it's too obvious and they get busted. I was pretty consistently above 1700 blitz on here. A few months ago I started falling and now staying above 1500 is a challenge. You can feel it in the pace, the positional play, tactics spotted. For some playing the game is fun, for others getting away with cheating is the real game. I don't know if there's much we can do.

A lot of players in the middle ranges have discovered the plugins. They don't rise high because if they do it's too obvious and they get busted. I was pretty consistently above 1700 blitz on here. A few months ago I started falling and now staying above 1500 is a challenge. You can feel it in the pace, the positional play, tactics spotted. For some playing the game is fun, for others getting away with cheating is the real game. I don't know if there's much we can do.
RabbitSamurai

@kindaspongey said ^

... in a 3 0 game you simply don't have a ton of time to see every threat your opponent has. ... Having said that, there is no way I could get to 2000 rapid and be over 1800 blitz on chess.com for a long period of time based on luck, right?

The thing is, it isn’t just “luck”. One IS making decisions. On a specific move, think for 2 seconds, 4 seconds, what? Move a bi...

I don't think "entitled" is the right word. Just to put it into perspective, if I played a player rated 500, I wouldn't feel "entitled" to beat them, I would just figure that if I play anywhere close to my level, I should beat them.

Doesn't that seem reasonable?

@kindaspongey said [^](/forum/redirect/post/ZsKSrowh) > > ... in a 3 0 game you simply don't have a ton of time to see every threat your opponent has. ... Having said that, there is no way I could get to 2000 rapid and be over 1800 blitz on chess.com for a long period of time based on luck, right? > > The thing is, it isn’t just “luck”. One IS making decisions. On a specific move, think for 2 seconds, 4 seconds, what? Move a bi... I don't think "entitled" is the right word. Just to put it into perspective, if I played a player rated 500, I wouldn't feel "entitled" to beat them, I would just figure that if I play anywhere close to my level, I should beat them. Doesn't that seem reasonable?