lichess.org
Donate

The difference between lichess players and another well-known chess platform

I'm afraid mentioning another platform might seem inappropriate in terms of etiquette. But we wanted to discuss it constructively, so I did not mention its name. But I'm sure everyone knows it's green.

I have my rating range around 1200 in Lichess but on another site, I hit 1400 but fell to 900 already. I think 800-900 players play a lot harder than 1200-1300 Lichess I wonder why.

Is Lichess supposed to be someone who focuses more on chess and therefore should be a better player? I don't know if the ratings are higher. I would love everyone's views, thank you.

P.S. I've read blogs that some players on that website are not very good at moves, but suddenly when they start to lose material, they have their best moves every turn. Is this a latent power?
The chess platform you're talking about is probably the best place to waste money on Earth, better than casinos (that's why I never go there). You have to pay "memberships" to make real progress on that website, but they have deflated ratings (900 there is 1200 on Lichess).

For your question, yes Lichess is supposed to be the website to focus more on chess to be a better player. Yes, the ratings here are inflated, and it's for that reason that people make progress. Never go to casinos ever.
I don't know about rating difference, but here there's definitely less people letting their clocks run out and less people trying to win everything with scholars mate which is awesome cause I can actually play some chess instead of repeating the same thing over and over.
I think lichess ratings are slightly higher by 100-200 points.
However, chess.com is overall a worse website (at least in my opinion) and that’s why I don’t play there.
Other than lichess/chess.con, mostly their players r cheated...and nothing u can do
@WassimBerbar said in #2:
> The chess platform you're talking about is probably the best place to waste money on Earth, better than casinos (that's why I never go there). You have to pay "memberships" to make real progress on that website, but they have deflated ratings (900 there is 1200 on Lichess).
>
> For your question, yes Lichess is supposed to be the website to focus more on chess to be a better player. Yes, the ratings here are inflated, and it's for that reason that people make progress. Never go to casinos ever.

From my experience, I agree. Being a 1700s player there, it is very hard to beat a 2000s opponent there.
Chess.con uses glicko 1 rating system , Lichess uses glicko 2 rating system this is why there is a disparity. But obviously Lichess players have more brains because why wouldn't you use a free website (that you can donate to) for the players run by the players xxx
I only really knew about one main chess site before I found lichess. I like it here more because it is free and friendly. I miss some features, like profile pictures because I like to see who I am playing, but it is not the end of the world. I can live without it. The main thing I like here is the endless puzzles without pay. I think it helps my game.
@Kafka-on-the-Shore said in #1:
> I'm afraid mentioning another platform might seem inappropriate in terms of etiquette. But we wanted to discuss it constructively, so I did not mention its name. But I'm sure everyone knows it's green.
>
> I have my rating range around 1200 in Lichess but on another site, I hit 1400 but fell to 900 already. I think 800-900 players play a lot harder than 1200-1300 Lichess I wonder why.
>
> Is Lichess supposed to be someone who focuses more on chess and therefore should be a better player? I don't know if the ratings are higher. I would love everyone's views, thank you.
>
> P.S. I've read blogs that some players on that website are not very good at moves, but suddenly when they start to lose material, they have their best moves every turn. Is this a latent power?

Don't ever silence yourself because someone imposes their standard of PC upon you. Don't ever let the tyrants take control over your tongue.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.