lichess.org
Donate

Are Lichess players better than Chess.com players?

A lot of players play on both websites so they are probably the same strength.

A lot of players play on both websites so they are probably the same strength.

@Nabhya54 said ^

Lichess and Chess.com are two different websites, each having their own different strengths and weaknesses, but which websites' players are better? Tbh, I think that Lichess players are better because there are more people who are good at chess on Lichess and has a lot of masters, not only GMs.

The mean lichess player is much better than the mean chess.com player. I know this cos I am better than 90% of rapid players on lichess while I'm better than 98% of rapid players on chess.com

@Nabhya54 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/7iB9zVne) > Lichess and Chess.com are two different websites, each having their own different strengths and weaknesses, but which websites' players are better? Tbh, I think that Lichess players are better because there are more people who are good at chess on Lichess and has a lot of masters, not only GMs. The mean lichess player is much better than the mean chess.com player. I know this cos I am better than 90% of rapid players on lichess while I'm better than 98% of rapid players on chess.com

Also, the reason a lot of bullet players prefer lichess is cos of the different premove rules.

Also, the reason a lot of bullet players prefer lichess is cos of the different premove rules.

Technically, a serious chess.com player needs either money or a title to use every tool or feature as much and as seriously as possible.

Also technically, a serious lichess.org player needs only an account that has not violated the Terms of Service to use every tool or feature as much and as seriously as possible.

If everybody were using the tools to really improve, it is clear that Lichess is the better place to do so just because the only thing that has to be paid for on Lichess are patron wings (which are a good working piece of gamification to show gratitude).

However, Lichess is also the more welcoming place for pure casual fun players.
Pay for features as a pure casual fun player? NO WAY!!
Donate once in a liftime for a cherity that means much to oneself? SURE! :-)

Technically, a serious chess.com player needs either money or a title to use every tool or feature as much and as seriously as possible. Also technically, a serious lichess.org player needs only an account that has not violated the Terms of Service to use every tool or feature as much and as seriously as possible. If everybody were using the tools to really improve, it is clear that Lichess is the better place to do so just because the only thing that has to be paid for on Lichess are patron wings (which are a good working piece of gamification to show gratitude). However, Lichess is also the more welcoming place for pure casual fun players. Pay for features as a pure casual fun player? NO WAY!! Donate once in a liftime for a cherity that means much to oneself? SURE! :-)

Chess.Com has ratings that go to 100, while Lichess has ratings that go to 400

Chess.Com has ratings that go to 100, while Lichess has ratings that go to 400

@TheCaptain7777 said ^

Also, the reason a lot of bullet players prefer lichess is cos of the different premove rules.

But I would think Chess.Com has better bullet because you can remove more than 1 move

@TheCaptain7777 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/NCiU5djP) > Also, the reason a lot of bullet players prefer lichess is cos of the different premove rules. But I would think Chess.Com has better bullet because you can remove more than 1 move

@TheCaptain7777 said ^

Lichess and Chess.com are two different websites, each having their own different strengths and weaknesses, but which websites' players are better? Tbh, I think that Lichess players are better because there are more people who are good at chess on Lichess and has a lot of masters, not only GMs.

The mean lichess player is much better than the mean chess.com player. I know this cos I am better than 90% of rapid players on lichess while I'm better than 98% of rapid players on chess.com

Probably because everyone and their brother know of chess.com, since they have the best domain name but only serious, smarter, prettier, handsomer people know of Lichess.

@TheCaptain7777 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/kr9oDSBw) > > Lichess and Chess.com are two different websites, each having their own different strengths and weaknesses, but which websites' players are better? Tbh, I think that Lichess players are better because there are more people who are good at chess on Lichess and has a lot of masters, not only GMs. > > The mean lichess player is much better than the mean chess.com player. I know this cos I am better than 90% of rapid players on lichess while I'm better than 98% of rapid players on chess.com Probably because everyone and their brother know of chess.com, since they have the best domain name but only serious, smarter, prettier, handsomer people know of Lichess.

@danielmbcn said ^

Personally I have found Chess.com players to be stronger than Lichess ones at the same rating. For instance, while in Lichess I'm around 1600 in blitz, in Chess.com I struggle to win against players rated over 1000 in blitz. In Lichess, I feel like a player rated 1000 has just learned to move the pieces the last week.

I'm not sure if it's because Chess.com uses the ELO system and Lichess uses Glicko-2, so the ratings are not really comparable one-to-one, but it's frankly depressing to see my ratings here and then in Chess.com to struggle against players who are theoretically noobs.

Chess.com uses Glicko-2.

@danielmbcn said [^](/forum/redirect/post/1VwLR4jj) > Personally I have found Chess.com players to be stronger than Lichess ones at the same rating. For instance, while in Lichess I'm around 1600 in blitz, in Chess.com I struggle to win against players rated over 1000 in blitz. In Lichess, I feel like a player rated 1000 has just learned to move the pieces the last week. > > I'm not sure if it's because Chess.com uses the ELO system and Lichess uses Glicko-2, so the ratings are not really comparable one-to-one, but it's frankly depressing to see my ratings here and then in Chess.com to struggle against players who are theoretically noobs. Chess.com uses Glicko-2.

I guess that chess.com has both stronger and weaker players than Lichess. There are generally more players on chess.com. Also more strong (titled) players, who have a free premium membership, can regularly compete for big prizes and sometimes even win some. (Many stronger players than me win them frequently. I've also won some, but last time long ago.) On the other hand, many strong players also play under their name or anonymously on Lichess, some of them even appear untitled. As far as I know, many strong GMs use Lichess for anonymous training games. Such games are almost invisible for the spectators when the players aren't playing from their accounts and just share an invitation link.
Chess.com probably also attracts more complete beginners, last but not least because finding chess.com is easier than finding Lichess.org.

I guess that chess.com has both stronger and weaker players than Lichess. There are generally more players on chess.com. Also more strong (titled) players, who have a free premium membership, can regularly compete for big prizes and sometimes even win some. (Many stronger players than me win them frequently. I've also won some, but last time long ago.) On the other hand, many strong players also play under their name or anonymously on Lichess, some of them even appear untitled. As far as I know, many strong GMs use Lichess for anonymous training games. Such games are almost invisible for the spectators when the players aren't playing from their accounts and just share an invitation link. Chess.com probably also attracts more complete beginners, last but not least because finding chess.com is easier than finding Lichess.org.

They are equally strong, but they have different ratings as the rating system is different.

The main difference I see is that they follow different lines for the most common openings I use. But the results are about the same.

Im slightly lower rated there, but since I dont play enough nor often there, Im still climbing a bit.

They are equally strong, but they have different ratings as the rating system is different. The main difference I see is that they follow different lines for the most common openings I use. But the results are about the same. Im slightly lower rated there, but since I dont play enough nor often there, Im still climbing a bit.