are lichess players stronger than chess.com?

@Baadne said in #19:

Bro. I’ve played on both for long time. It was better here years ago. But last year lichess seems to have given up on cheat detection. Had an account here, played thousands of games, reported frequently those that blundered as noobs in beginning, then played perfectly, then became noob again in the time scramble, etc. Non, nada, zero refunds. No reported players was banned. Then I closed the account. Opened up an account at chess.com. Became higher rated in blitz there than here ,1800 to 1930 on chess. com. Surprise? No. Lichess seems to have given up on certain things, and those that donate money to lichess might just feeding some greedy guys behind lichess. Suspect those greedy guys rather wants their money for themselves, rather than use them in upgrading, maintainance, using money, power and hardware on running power an moneyconsuming cheat detections all day long.

I will never play lichess anymore. I opened an old account here just to try to tell my view and experience from this place. The account I will close right after I have posted this.
This post will be deleted by the moderators, so make sure to take a screenshot of this post if you want to keep it for the record.
I feel like they still deal with cheaters

same people

How many times is this question going to be ask?

@nadjarostowa said in #18:

Maybe you could share your algorithm to do so. People have tried that for decades without success.

We use engines to determine the best players from the past, so we can use engines to determine a person's rating now.
Instead of just adding rating points because of a win you would add rating points based on computer analysis.

I play here and at the bigger site but also at a third website that has been around for 20+ years and the ratings over there always match my OTB ratings of 1600+...I don't know how they do it but it works.
When I was 1200 OTB I was 1200 at that site.
When I moved up to 1600 over time, my OTB and site rating always matches.
Which explains why 99 percent of my play has been over there.

@justme23 said in #23:

How many times is this question going to be ask?
as long as there will be a debate between which is better between tea and coffee. I just hope that these Maguires of chess (Niemmans and Kramnik) don't come here, that's a useful question to know if we need Coffee or Tea (or a second goalkeeper) when we will watch them!

Yes. Compare your percentile on Lichess.org to chess.com. The same player is much higher on chess.com. Chess.com spends a ton of money on marketing because they need a constant supply of beginners to replace the players who leave for lichess.org when their potato clock servers crash.

It's much of the same people. Notice how everyone here posting has an opinion? Because they play both.

The interface at lichess is so much better. I wouldn't exactly say expectations of having a fun game are though.

Many games here are against people using multiple usernames for ranking games. They might play them against each other and then also against others to up or down their account ranking. I've played people that you can easily tell are much better than I am for half the game and then I do something dumb and recognize right after, no time to fix. But the opponent pauses and purposely doesn't take advantage. Usually purposely then putting themselves into a rough or worse spot. They lose on purpose? yeah apparently at times they sure do.

I've seen less of that while at Chess.com and honestly more natural feeling gameplay. But still see it. Maybe I just can't tell as easily there since their interface is usually giving me a headache and I just want out. Maybe their interface isn't as easy to get away with it. Don't know. Don't care.

@redDept7ll said in #28:

I've played people that you can easily tell are much better than I am for half the game and then I do something dumb and recognize right after, no time to fix. But the opponent pauses and purposely doesn't take advantage.

No offense intended, but you are playing Bullet with a rating of 800. Maybe you interpret much more meaning into the moves than there actually is. At least at my level (1800-ish), there is sooo many weird moves, and I can guarantee that we often play strange moves after a too long think. :-)

@EcstaticFork is breaking my poor old flapless heart. When I migrated from an older and now much smaller chess club, I thought I'd suddenly become a wizard! Stop crushing my dream, Fork! :).

Incidentally, so long as the ratings pool is BIG enough, percentile scores (based upon that pool) should produce pretty equivalent results, statistically, even if absolute rating points do not. In other words, if the pools are large, a ninetieth percentile player here should be about a ninetieth percentile player in a different big pool -- although to be at the ninetieth percentile might yield a different number of rating points at both sites, unless they calculate rating points using the same algorithm.

However, in a MUCH smaller pool of grizzled chess vets, the ninetieth percentile MIGHT actually be more skilled, than the ninetieth percentile in a large pool. I suspect that the sites "chess" and "lichess" are both large enough to avoid that sort of anomaly. Unlike, say, a much, much smaller pool composed of only European grandmasters.

What rating is 90th percentile here and what (perhaps different) rating is 90th percentile at the "chess" site? As something of a mathematician, my off-the-cuff intuition suggests that comparing THOSE two ratings would be interesting and genuinely informative. (90th is arbitrary, of course -- 50th would be equally fine).

Comparing percentiles to percentiles is not comparing apples to potatoes, or dogs to pizzas, or noflaps to a much younger person.