4 ms·

I briefly scanned the article. I am not that impressed by the result. I thought that an average smart person and particularly someone with a scientific backgro

I briefly scanned the article. I am not that impressed by the result. I thought that an average smart person and particularly someone with a scientific background could reach that resalt in one or two months. My experience. I played chess when I was between 13 and 16, at that time I was a good player but not a child prodigy, let's say one of the best players in my school. I have no idea of my ELO then, there was no internet in the early '80s. I have not played for roughly 40 years. I few years ago I started playing on lichess and my ELO is now around 1700 (with a peak of 1900). I don't know if chess.com and lichess have different ratings.

zpeti 3y ago
Lichess ratings are higher generally, although they even out with chess.com the higher you get. 1400 on lichess is more like 1200 on chess.com, but 1900 is probably 1900. Based on your post though, you definitely seem like you are very smart or have a natural affinity for chess. 1900 is extremely high, especially in a few months or even years. Normally people gain around 300 ELO points per year if they are learning and practicing actively.
- V-2 3y ago
  > 1400 on lichess is more like 1200 on chess.com, but 1900 is probably 1900. Not in my experience. I'm rated 1900+ on lichess and 1600+ on chess.com. That's after playing a significant number of games (nearly 500 on chess.com, thousands on lichess). The way I feel about it, a 1900 player on lichess is an intermediate beginner (like myself), whereas 1900 on chess.com already represents a decent club player level. For reference, "in real life" (Elo rating / FIDE) I'm rated below 1300 in classical chess, and about 1400 in rapid - although I've played only one rapid tournament, and I don't have a blitz rating at all, which makes comparisons a bit tricky. For what it's worth though, as far as I can tell, these proportions are about typical.
thope 3y ago
yes, they use different rating systems (Glicko 1 and 2), see https://lichess.org/page/rating-systems https://lichess.org/page/rating-systems

zpeti 3y ago

Lichess ratings are higher generally, although they even out with chess.com the higher you get. 1400 on lichess is more like 1200 on chess.com, but 1900 is probably 1900. Based on your post though, you definitely seem like you are very smart or have a natural affinity for chess. 1900 is extremely high, especially in a few months or even years. Normally people gain around 300 ELO points per year if they are learning and practicing actively.

V-2 3y ago
> 1400 on lichess is more like 1200 on chess.com, but 1900 is probably 1900. Not in my experience. I'm rated 1900+ on lichess and 1600+ on chess.com. That's after playing a significant number of games (nearly 500 on chess.com, thousands on lichess). The way I feel about it, a 1900 player on lichess is an intermediate beginner (like myself), whereas 1900 on chess.com already represents a decent club player level. For reference, "in real life" (Elo rating / FIDE) I'm rated below 1300 in classical chess, and about 1400 in rapid - although I've played only one rapid tournament, and I don't have a blitz rating at all, which makes comparisons a bit tricky. For what it's worth though, as far as I can tell, these proportions are about typical.

thope 3y ago

yes, they use different rating systems (Glicko 1 and 2), see https://lichess.org/page/rating-systems https://lichess.org/page/rating-systems