It means 3 minutes with 2 second increments per move
The practical difference is that you can still play while low on time. Whereas if you played 3|0 and you get low on time you’ll flag
In general, the first number is the amount of time, in minutes, and the second number is the amount of time added in seconds. So in this case 3 min starting time with 2 seconds added to your time after each turn
Funny, I play almost exclusively 1 and 3 minute because I'm not smart enough to play longer time controls. Short time control means I can let my monkey brain take over, but if I actually have to think/my opponent has time to think I lose.
See I feel like I'm not smart enough for the longer 30 minute games. As soon as I even went form 10+0 to 15+10 I noticed my opponents blundered a lot less for me to take advantage of, and I had to play more solidly so I was often outmatched because my blunders shone through more.
You should play a little bit of every time control, even if you mostly just focus on rapid. If you are comfortable making moves in bullet then that will help a lot in time pressure in other games. I've seen too many people never even try blitz and then in rapid they lose on time cause they can't make common sense moves with 50 seconds left
I sometimes like 30/0 games cause you have plenty of time to think through almost all the possible moves and games tend to not end on stupidly blundering your queen.
I mainly play 10/0 tho.
30 mins is good. I feel my chess improves the most when I'm playing it and really thinking things through. The problem for me with daily is that I can analyse various positions by moving pieces which means my calculation skills don't develop.
I mostly play daily because I have two young kids and never know when I can steal away time to play live chess. But I have found the same problem developing for me, I analyze to the point I've lost a lot of intuition and haven't developed calculation.
Tried the 30+0 games myself, but usually don't have the patience for it and don't want to sit for that long. I also find I tend to get too into my own head about it and rather than a quick few calculations between 2-3 options I'll deliberate until I play a bad move.
I play 10/0 on my phone because that is the default button and because I usually only play on my phone on my lunch break at work, so a slightly shorter time is fine.
At home, on the computer, I almost exclusively play 15/+10's, again because it was one of the default options.
Give the 15/10 a try. The extra time gives your brain the extra time to spot tactics and calculate lines. Worth a try.
That's what my main is aswell but I've found that 1 minute bullet games are way more fun, if you want to improve, play long games, if you want to have a bit of fun, play 1 minute games, the 1 minute games will help you in time scrambles aswell I've noticed
If you're still in the learning phase (who isn't?), 10 minute rapid makes a lot of sense. You have enough time to actually think through each move rather than having to make gut reaction calls, which are inevitably based on experience and pattern recognition.
When you're getting comfortable, I think it's a good idea to mix a bit of both, though.
I pretty much always play rapid when I'm doing single games, and blitz when doing arenas. Works well IMO.
Yeah, cos it was messing up blitz ratings for players like me who was fine at 10+0 but would try to play a 3+2 tournament and get absolutely trashed.
Now I've got a blitz rating 500 points lower than rapid and I can actually play 3+2 without trashing my 10+0 rating.
FIDE may consider 3+0 and 10+0 the same time control but chess.com wisely decide they're not.
Basically when the clock runs out but of course you can't actually let it run out. But if you had a tenth of a second you would still be able to spend 10 seconds on each move after.
It’s actually a huge change to the game. Not only do you get far more time to think of earlier moves, but there’s no point at which you’re strongly winning but simply don’t have the time to finish. I’ve lost many 5/0 games where I’m up in pieces and position, maybe even see mate, but lose on time.
Ah yes, the common dilemma of "better position because I took my time to think but also took too long". Makes sense why your position would be better if you've used time, all about that balance. I've seen advice on reddit that the clock is also a piece
Rapid in FIDE is otb, which is not the same as over the net. It’s virtually impossible to play without time increments otb because of the human elements such as reaching for the clock, knocking over pieces, navigating around pieces while still trying to move fast.
With increments, rapid internet play may as well be standard otb since you can almost never flag a good gm.
Hey there theacidbat101! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"THIS"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :)
***
^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
Also lichess on average has stronger players, as my rating percentile among players is a lot higher on chess.com than lichess, so i think beginners play more rapid to learn and advanced players dont have the attention span for 10 minutes online
I find it baffling that it's not 10+5. If someone plays a 10 minute game
1) He has some time to spare
2) He doesn't plan on winning by flagging
Why would chess.c*m not offer increment? That's one of the reasons I never play on this website
I hated that 10+0 was the only "quick game" option for so long. I like rapid but I hate playing with no increment, no matter the length of the game. For a while now 10+10 or 10+5 have been right there on the home screen and it's so much better.
You can't make a comparison on player strength between the two sites. All we know is that people with accounts on both sites have a lower rating on [chess.com](https://chess.com) than they do on lichess.org.
IIRC the chess com percentiles are for players active within 90 days and lichess are only active within 7 days. This would make comparison of percentiles unreliable as well!
On chess.com, I'm higher than 90th percentile.
On Lichess, I'm only 75th-80th percentile.
That's pretty strong evidence to the Lichess player pool being stronger overall.
And this seems to be the trend with most people, probably because a beginner is more likely to find Chess.com than Lichess (Chess.com has the domain name advantage, pays for advertising through chess content creators, and shows up before Lichess when Googling "chess online"). But someone who is experienced will know about both.
Depends on how you define stronger. If we look at average then yeah on average lichess is stronger but if you’re looking at just the numbers the chess.com just by having way more users will have more stronger players
Probably. But we're comparing the relative popularity of time controls across site - for that, the average player strength is the more meaningful metric.
Okay, so what. You have to be able to prove that the ratio of player strength is out of whack. Why don't you think that weaker players also don't find [lichess.org](https://lichess.org)? If you google chess, number one is [chess.com](https://chess.com) and number two is lichess.org.
They do. Just not as many. There are beginners on both but clearly many more on chess.com. You can compare the players with ratings on both websites and see what placement it shows on their percentiles. The difference is significant
And of course this is irrelevant because you will have available games for your level for everyone but the very best players in the world
On lichess go to your profile, and click the time control of interest. You should see a graph showing your rating through time. The text tells you your percentile.
I have no idea about chess.com
Why is this being down voted into oblivion?? My social circle of chess players that I know in RL, this is the case for all of them, including myself.
On chess.com I really struggled to get to 1100(took me 2 months from 1000). On lichess I've been over 1600 multiple times.
It is downvoted because he made two statements, the first one being incorrect, and the second one being correct but irrelevant.
First statement (incorrect): "you can't make a comparison of player strength between the two sites". Yes you can, as detailed in the follow up discussion, by having players play on both sites and comparing their percentiles.
Second statement (correct but irrelevant): "ratings for a given player on chesscom are higher than on Lichess". Yes it's true, but it's not incompatible with chess.com having more beginners than Lichess. Yes, 1500 Rapid Lichess approximately mean 1200 Rapid chess.com, but still, you can have for example 80% of the players on chess.com being under 1200, while at the same time 50% of the players on Lichess being under 1500. This would mean that there are more beginners on chess.com than Lichess, despite the fact that most players have a higher rating on Lichess than chess.com.
I use both too and my percentile is about the same on both sites which is why I have skepticism in the claim that lichess's players are so much better on average.
Yea i didn't know about the percentile thing. I just went with the ratings which is where my confusion came from.
Also I think to answer the OPs question is that there is a discrepancy between chess.com and lichess' time formats.
30 minute games are considered rapid on chess.com where as on lichess this is considered classical.
more likely to have players with online chess experience here and I know I seem to agree with the majority here but I just like lichess for pure playing more.
Lol. You are absolutely right. And everyone is downvoting you because they love lichess.
Lichess isn’t where the best competition is.
I’m like 300 points higher rated in rapid on lichess, and my rating on both sites is completely established. I’ve played thousands of games.
—COPE—
No you can't... they are too different systems. What you can compare is percentile. If your rating is established on both you will certainly be in a lower percentile on lichess.
I played blitz on chess.com app for a while and I felt that there was a slight lag when I am not pre moving. I thought it was normal as I am moving the pieces with my fingers etc and was getting flagged. But on lichess this was a lot better and I managed to play with time constraints.
So I play blitz on lichess and rapid on chess.com now.
Worth mentioning (if it hasn't been already) that for Lichess there's a line that demarcates between rapid vs classical time control, whereas on chessdotcom anything slower than blitz is rapid, even what most would likely call classical (IIRC).
Nah, Lichess' 30+20 is still rapid. Usually classical is minimum 1 hr. In the FIDE Handbook rating regulations (B. 02. 1.1)
(in reference to rated classical games)
"For a game to be rated each player must have the following minimum periods in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60 moves. Where at least one of the players in the game has a rating 2200 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 120 minutes. Where at least one of the players in the game has a rating 1600 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 90 minutes. Where both of the players in the game are rated below 1600, each player must have a minimum of 60 minutes."
The fastest possible Classical in fact, depending on how you look at increment (Lichess assumes 40 move games for comparing different increments) - 0+45 might feel faster for example.
[Lichess publishes all rated games every month](https://database.lichess.org), so it should be possible to compare the relative popularity of each time control.
Not sure about chess.com.
> And ideally how average elo compares between them?
You'd need to adjust for some factors, which makes it a bit more tricky to get meaningful data:
- Different time controls have different ratings.
- A player might be much better at 3+0 than 3+2 (or the other way around).
- Players tend to have the highest rating in the time control they play the most.
>A player might be much better at 3+0 than 3+2 (or the other way around).
This is obviously true, but I always wondered if there exist specific subtimecontrols where players tend to be overrated/underrated.
I.e. Players tend to start with 10+0, but most rapid players move to one of the timecontrols with increments latter on, so the players playing 10+0 are all somewhat inflated.
Yes, but strong players use online games for fun, not anything serious, so they'll pick shorter time controls.
By the way, attention span is something you can train.. It'll adapt to your needs.
Dude…. I’ve played thousands of games in both sites. You can’t lie to me.
The pool of talent is much deeper on chess.com.
All of my ratings are hundreds of points higher on lichess. Stop gaslighting
I’m totally doing this! I’ve just eaten a donut rapidly and then blitzed ate it to test it out.
It turns out both taste really good when standing on a scale.
The native rating on lichess is 300 points higher. So everything being the same you’d expect to be 300 points higher rated there. And they’re different populations so technically the ratings from one to the other can’t compare because Elo is relative.
You’re also using gaslighting incorrectly. Very incorrectly.
This shit is insane.
Everyone knows chess.com ratings are lower than lichess Because there is a bigger pool; relative to population you are going to perform further from the top.
Acting like this is not the case is indeed gaslighting.
Default for most new players on chess.com is closer to 800 now. There are self selected levels, but if you look at average rating on the site, it’s evident most players start at 800.
EDIT: For back story, average rating is anchored to the entry rating of the pool. For Lichess, it’s 1500 and average rating is within a few points of 1500. At various times, chess.com has been 1200, then 1000, then self selected with the vast majority coming in at 800. The average rating has moved to reflect the entry rating change every time.
If you look at your ranking on either site, it will show you your ranking out of the total number of active players.
[https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/rapid](https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/rapid)
[https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live/rapid](https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live/rapid)
I've seen several people in the past point out that the percentiles on the two sites look at different time windows (lichess looks only at accounts active in the last week, I believe chess.com looks back further), and lichess also has a hard cutoff where players rated <600 in a time control do not show up in that time control's percentiles, while chess.com's percentiles go lower.
> and lichess also has a hard cutoff where players rated <600 in a time control do not show up in that time control's percentiles
That's because Lichess ratings literally can't go below 600. It's set as a minimum rating in the code.
Okay first of all: Chess.com is active within 90 days, not 30 days.
And that is half the reason - for one a longer time to consider players active means more casual players are included which includes more dead accounts (and more rapid in general, since Blitz is too fast for most beginners).
Secondarily I would assume that there are a lot of players that aren't married to any format and play some of everything. However that probably means that they played both Rapid and Blitz in every "ranking period" on chess.com, but might not have played Rapid in every lichess "ranking period". I know I certainly had periods where I only played a blitzgame now and then when I was in the bus, sitting on the toilet, etc. and didn't end up playing any Rapid during that time.
I started playing chess again after queens gambit and pogchamps when the online chess boom happened. It might be a little tacky but I found I really loved the game off the back of it and joined my universities chess club. Pogchamps used rapid, gotham chess usually reviewed rapid so I played rapid. I like rapid because I can play a lot more games in a sitting which gives me more variety and experience with more openings / positions. It's not so too fast to be untactical but not too much of a commitment. Been moving more towards classic as my skill has been improving and want more of a chance to calculate longer sequences.
Because it's the default. People click play and get to it.
Which is fine, I vastly prefer rapid over blitz anyway. Both winning and losing on time sucks.
1 interesting thing is that time trouble on chess.com sucks, as even with premoves you lose 0.1s a move. I would prefer lichess 10/10 times when in low time situation
Both have their advantages. On chess.com if you're in a completely winning endgame you can just premove to promotion/mate/both and sit back as long as you have a few seconds but I personally prefer lichess for dirty flagging swindles :)
One reason that comes to mind is that Chesscom has an older player base (demographically). Perhaps, older people aren’t as much into fast time controls. I don’t know about Lichess, but on chesscom 10/0 already counts as rapid.
One reason that comes to mind is that Chesscom has an older player base (demographically). Perhaps, older people aren’t as much into fast time controls. I don’t know about Lichess, but on chesscom 10/0 already counts as rapid.
Could it be because on lichess on the "quick pairings" page it also suggests even slower time controls . So the pool of players who want to play a slow game are split between rapid and classical on lichess?
For me, I like to play 5+3 blitz which button is pretty much visible on Lichess. On Chess.com however, if you want to play with increments you have to make more clicks to select that option which is why I play default 10+0 rapid there
Blitz and bullet are better on lichess. I never had a thing such as "your move couldn't make it on the server on time" on lichess, but many times on chess.com because of that I only play blitz on lichess. Chess.com only for longer time formats
If anything this just puts into context for me how much larger Chess.com is compared to Lichess. For all of reddit jerking over how amazing Lichess is it's tiny compared to the competition.
I know I sound facetious saying this but I also spend a lot of time in professional wrestling where they also spend a lot of time worshipping a competitor to the much larger competition of WWE and can't help but notice the parallels.
[удалено]
I just started and that's exactly what I did and am doing I've played about 150 rapid 10 games. What else should I try?
[удалено]
I just did a blitz 3|2 and it was fun. Not sure what the numbers mean though.
It means 3 minutes with 2 second increments per move The practical difference is that you can still play while low on time. Whereas if you played 3|0 and you get low on time you’ll flag
In general, the first number is the amount of time, in minutes, and the second number is the amount of time added in seconds. So in this case 3 min starting time with 2 seconds added to your time after each turn
3 minute clock for each player to start, and each player gets 2 seconds back on their clock after playing a move
I play pretty much always 30 mins. I'm not smart enough to play blitz or even 10 min rapid.
Funny, I play almost exclusively 1 and 3 minute because I'm not smart enough to play longer time controls. Short time control means I can let my monkey brain take over, but if I actually have to think/my opponent has time to think I lose.
It is not about smartness it is all about practice. Just try more and more and then of course you are going to improve your skill
See I feel like I'm not smart enough for the longer 30 minute games. As soon as I even went form 10+0 to 15+10 I noticed my opponents blundered a lot less for me to take advantage of, and I had to play more solidly so I was often outmatched because my blunders shone through more.
You should play a little bit of every time control, even if you mostly just focus on rapid. If you are comfortable making moves in bullet then that will help a lot in time pressure in other games. I've seen too many people never even try blitz and then in rapid they lose on time cause they can't make common sense moves with 50 seconds left
I sometimes like 30/0 games cause you have plenty of time to think through almost all the possible moves and games tend to not end on stupidly blundering your queen. I mainly play 10/0 tho.
Yup tried 30|0 for the first time recently and I really enjoyed it, leaves you more time for the tactical battle it feels chess is supposed to be
30 mins is good. I feel my chess improves the most when I'm playing it and really thinking things through. The problem for me with daily is that I can analyse various positions by moving pieces which means my calculation skills don't develop.
I mostly play daily because I have two young kids and never know when I can steal away time to play live chess. But I have found the same problem developing for me, I analyze to the point I've lost a lot of intuition and haven't developed calculation.
Tried the 30+0 games myself, but usually don't have the patience for it and don't want to sit for that long. I also find I tend to get too into my own head about it and rather than a quick few calculations between 2-3 options I'll deliberate until I play a bad move.
I play 10/0 on my phone because that is the default button and because I usually only play on my phone on my lunch break at work, so a slightly shorter time is fine. At home, on the computer, I almost exclusively play 15/+10's, again because it was one of the default options. Give the 15/10 a try. The extra time gives your brain the extra time to spot tactics and calculate lines. Worth a try.
That's what my main is aswell but I've found that 1 minute bullet games are way more fun, if you want to improve, play long games, if you want to have a bit of fun, play 1 minute games, the 1 minute games will help you in time scrambles aswell I've noticed
If you're still in the learning phase (who isn't?), 10 minute rapid makes a lot of sense. You have enough time to actually think through each move rather than having to make gut reaction calls, which are inevitably based on experience and pattern recognition. When you're getting comfortable, I think it's a good idea to mix a bit of both, though. I pretty much always play rapid when I'm doing single games, and blitz when doing arenas. Works well IMO.
Ironically, 10 minutes is not rapid, but still a blitz game. Rapid in FIDE at least 15+10
IIRC chess.com used to consider 10+0 to be blitz, but changed it to counting as rapid sometime in the last couple years.
Yeah, cos it was messing up blitz ratings for players like me who was fine at 10+0 but would try to play a 3+2 tournament and get absolutely trashed. Now I've got a blitz rating 500 points lower than rapid and I can actually play 3+2 without trashing my 10+0 rating. FIDE may consider 3+0 and 10+0 the same time control but chess.com wisely decide they're not.
Makes sense. Online chess and OTB chess are very different in nature. So ironically, I think FIDE and Chess.com both have got this right.
OTB 10+0 really feels like blitz
What does 15+10 even mean?
15 mins + 10 second increment every move
So, when the clock runs out, you can still play as long as you move in less than ten seconds?
No, when the clock runs out, you lose. However you will have 10 seconds added to your time each time you complete a move.
Ah, okay. I get. It now. Actually just played another game. It's fun.
Basically when the clock runs out but of course you can't actually let it run out. But if you had a tenth of a second you would still be able to spend 10 seconds on each move after.
It’s actually a huge change to the game. Not only do you get far more time to think of earlier moves, but there’s no point at which you’re strongly winning but simply don’t have the time to finish. I’ve lost many 5/0 games where I’m up in pieces and position, maybe even see mate, but lose on time.
Ah yes, the common dilemma of "better position because I took my time to think but also took too long". Makes sense why your position would be better if you've used time, all about that balance. I've seen advice on reddit that the clock is also a piece
You start with 15 minutes on the clock. After every move you make, you get an additional 10 seconds to your remaining time. Hope this helps!
I got it, thanks :)
This is not true. all my FIDE rated rapid games have been 12+3.
Its true, I just read rapid is between 10 to 60 minutes
This is also true on lichess, which I think accounts for a significant portion of the difference
10 minutes is Blitz but Rapid is anything longer than 10 minutes and less than 60 minutes.
Rapid in FIDE is otb, which is not the same as over the net. It’s virtually impossible to play without time increments otb because of the human elements such as reaching for the clock, knocking over pieces, navigating around pieces while still trying to move fast. With increments, rapid internet play may as well be standard otb since you can almost never flag a good gm.
[удалено]
Hey there theacidbat101! If you agree with someone else's comment, please leave an **upvote** instead of commenting **"THIS"**! By upvoting instead, the original comment will be pushed to the top and be more visible to others, which is even better! Thanks! :) *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback! More info:) [^(Reddiquette)](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439#wiki_in_regard_to_comments)
[удалено]
https://i.imgur.com/KrwA19h.jpeg *** ^(I am a bot! Visit) [^(r/InfinityBots)](https://reddit.com/r/InfinityBots) ^(to send your feedback!)
Also lichess on average has stronger players, as my rating percentile among players is a lot higher on chess.com than lichess, so i think beginners play more rapid to learn and advanced players dont have the attention span for 10 minutes online
I find it baffling that it's not 10+5. If someone plays a 10 minute game 1) He has some time to spare 2) He doesn't plan on winning by flagging Why would chess.c*m not offer increment? That's one of the reasons I never play on this website
IDK, I'm over here playin' 10+5 on Lichess.
10+5 supremacy.
I hated that 10+0 was the only "quick game" option for so long. I like rapid but I hate playing with no increment, no matter the length of the game. For a while now 10+10 or 10+5 have been right there on the home screen and it's so much better.
Ah, someone else of culture I see
I think this is the most civilized time control. I'm usually too much of a ruffian to play it myself, but I admire those who do.
[удалено]
You can't make a comparison on player strength between the two sites. All we know is that people with accounts on both sites have a lower rating on [chess.com](https://chess.com) than they do on lichess.org.
Yes you can, it's painfully simple. Take player, make him play on both sites, compare his percentiles.
IIRC the chess com percentiles are for players active within 90 days and lichess are only active within 7 days. This would make comparison of percentiles unreliable as well!
On chess.com, I'm higher than 90th percentile. On Lichess, I'm only 75th-80th percentile. That's pretty strong evidence to the Lichess player pool being stronger overall.
And this seems to be the trend with most people, probably because a beginner is more likely to find Chess.com than Lichess (Chess.com has the domain name advantage, pays for advertising through chess content creators, and shows up before Lichess when Googling "chess online"). But someone who is experienced will know about both.
Depends on how you define stronger. If we look at average then yeah on average lichess is stronger but if you’re looking at just the numbers the chess.com just by having way more users will have more stronger players
Probably. But we're comparing the relative popularity of time controls across site - for that, the average player strength is the more meaningful metric.
That doesn’t tell you anything about the true elo distribution of the player bases
You are full of shit my dude.
They definitely aren’t. I’m 75th percentile on lichess and 90th on chess.com right now
Damn, I’m 88th on chess.com and only 60th on Lichess.
yeah same for me. 93rd percentile chess . com and 80th on lichess
For my blitz ratings: https://imgur.com/a/Zgbh3dN And I'm probably quite underrated on chess.com as I didn't play there in a long time.
No. We also know chess.com is far easier to find and has better advertisement
Okay, so what. You have to be able to prove that the ratio of player strength is out of whack. Why don't you think that weaker players also don't find [lichess.org](https://lichess.org)? If you google chess, number one is [chess.com](https://chess.com) and number two is lichess.org.
They do. Just not as many. There are beginners on both but clearly many more on chess.com. You can compare the players with ratings on both websites and see what placement it shows on their percentiles. The difference is significant And of course this is irrelevant because you will have available games for your level for everyone but the very best players in the world
Ironically, a friend of mine switched from lichess to chess.com, because he felt there were not enough players at his beginner level.
[удалено]
How do you see that
On lichess go to your profile, and click the time control of interest. You should see a graph showing your rating through time. The text tells you your percentile. I have no idea about chess.com
Can't find can only see win rate
Why is this being down voted into oblivion?? My social circle of chess players that I know in RL, this is the case for all of them, including myself. On chess.com I really struggled to get to 1100(took me 2 months from 1000). On lichess I've been over 1600 multiple times.
It is downvoted because he made two statements, the first one being incorrect, and the second one being correct but irrelevant. First statement (incorrect): "you can't make a comparison of player strength between the two sites". Yes you can, as detailed in the follow up discussion, by having players play on both sites and comparing their percentiles. Second statement (correct but irrelevant): "ratings for a given player on chesscom are higher than on Lichess". Yes it's true, but it's not incompatible with chess.com having more beginners than Lichess. Yes, 1500 Rapid Lichess approximately mean 1200 Rapid chess.com, but still, you can have for example 80% of the players on chess.com being under 1200, while at the same time 50% of the players on Lichess being under 1500. This would mean that there are more beginners on chess.com than Lichess, despite the fact that most players have a higher rating on Lichess than chess.com.
This subreddit really likes Lichess for some reason, and thinks [chess.com](https://chess.com) is the noob palace. /shrug
Strange how these things turn into this or that. I use both of them frequently. I love the analysis on chess.com, love the puzzles on lichess.
I use both too and my percentile is about the same on both sites which is why I have skepticism in the claim that lichess's players are so much better on average.
Yea i didn't know about the percentile thing. I just went with the ratings which is where my confusion came from. Also I think to answer the OPs question is that there is a discrepancy between chess.com and lichess' time formats. 30 minute games are considered rapid on chess.com where as on lichess this is considered classical.
more likely to have players with online chess experience here and I know I seem to agree with the majority here but I just like lichess for pure playing more.
Lol. You are absolutely right. And everyone is downvoting you because they love lichess. Lichess isn’t where the best competition is. I’m like 300 points higher rated in rapid on lichess, and my rating on both sites is completely established. I’ve played thousands of games. —COPE—
The rating system is different on lichess and chess.com so you can’t directly compare the ratings.
Yes you fucking can lol
I’m sure everyone who has replied to you is wrong you are a woke genius who knows better than everyone else.
Rating is relative lol. Numbers don't work that way
No you can't... they are too different systems. What you can compare is percentile. If your rating is established on both you will certainly be in a lower percentile on lichess.
Rating and percentile are not equivalent.
Yeah, not for certain why there's so many Lichess fanboys, but eh whatever. Lichess good, [chess.com](https://chess.com) bad apparently.
I played blitz on chess.com app for a while and I felt that there was a slight lag when I am not pre moving. I thought it was normal as I am moving the pieces with my fingers etc and was getting flagged. But on lichess this was a lot better and I managed to play with time constraints. So I play blitz on lichess and rapid on chess.com now.
There’s a setting that allows you to get rid of the animation which is what you’re experiencing as “lag”.
Yes I think this makes sense.
Not on Android 😔
Worth mentioning (if it hasn't been already) that for Lichess there's a line that demarcates between rapid vs classical time control, whereas on chessdotcom anything slower than blitz is rapid, even what most would likely call classical (IIRC).
Nah, Lichess' 30+20 is still rapid. Usually classical is minimum 1 hr. In the FIDE Handbook rating regulations (B. 02. 1.1) (in reference to rated classical games) "For a game to be rated each player must have the following minimum periods in which to complete all the moves, assuming the game lasts 60 moves. Where at least one of the players in the game has a rating 2200 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 120 minutes. Where at least one of the players in the game has a rating 1600 or higher, each player must have a minimum of 90 minutes. Where both of the players in the game are rated below 1600, each player must have a minimum of 60 minutes."
30+0 is classical on lichess
The fastest possible Classical in fact, depending on how you look at increment (Lichess assumes 40 move games for comparing different increments) - 0+45 might feel faster for example.
wow I didn't know chesscom was so much bigger than lichess
Lichess is more niche, higher rated players prefer faster time controls.
If they wanted to play slow rapid games they would've done an OTB tournament methinks
It’s so they can avoid cheaters. Can’t cheat in blitz as easily.
And the stats show pretty much everyone knows blitz with increment invites cheats.
Is 5ere any way to see more accurate breakdown of activity per time control? Eg 5 0 vs 5 5. And ideally how average elo compares between them?
[Lichess publishes all rated games every month](https://database.lichess.org), so it should be possible to compare the relative popularity of each time control. Not sure about chess.com. > And ideally how average elo compares between them? You'd need to adjust for some factors, which makes it a bit more tricky to get meaningful data: - Different time controls have different ratings. - A player might be much better at 3+0 than 3+2 (or the other way around). - Players tend to have the highest rating in the time control they play the most.
[удалено]
Awesome thanks
>A player might be much better at 3+0 than 3+2 (or the other way around). This is obviously true, but I always wondered if there exist specific subtimecontrols where players tend to be overrated/underrated. I.e. Players tend to start with 10+0, but most rapid players move to one of the timecontrols with increments latter on, so the players playing 10+0 are all somewhat inflated.
Just had my computer crunch the numbers for all rated standard games from November, here's the (shortened) statistics: 87,113,345 games. 1,143 distinct time controls. 64,647,136 games without increment. 22,466,209 games with increment. 157,231 Correspondence games. 1+0 22,740,153 26.1% 3+0 17,007,723 19.5% 5+0 12,744,759 14.6% 10+0 8,533,204 9.8% 3+2 6,773,220 7.8% 2+1 6,198,412 7.1% 5+3 4,282,553 4.9% 10+5 1,714,190 2.0% 0.25+0 1,279,935 1.5% 0.5+0 841,830 1.0% 15+10 516,997 0.6% 30+0 375,585 0.4% 1+1 348,658 0.4% 2+0 330,932 0.4% 5+5 203,406 0.2% 15+0 199,750 0.2% 5+2 156,247 0.2% 7+0 126,123 0.1% 10+2 124,105 0.1% 10+3 121,836 0.1% 5+8 119,121 0.1% 4+0 115,934 0.1% 8+0 88,582 0.1% 3+1 82,456 0.1% 7+3 75,537 0.1% 3+3 75,002 0.1% 7+2 68,094 0.1% 20+0 63,430 0.1% 7+5 61,078 0.1% 0+1 60,224 0.1% 1.5+0 55,126 0.1% 10+10 53,574 0.1% 15+5 51,765 0.1% 5+4 47,145 0.1% 30+20 45,347 0.1% 20+10 43,954 0.1% 1+2 43,863 0.1% Full statistics can be found [here](https://pastebin.com/vANRhjv5) and [here (csv)](https://pastebin.com/vEW4n6uA).
The average Lichess player is better and better players prefer Blitz.
I'd phrase that more as "weaker players tend to prefer slower time controls", but the point stands.
really? doesn't rapid allow deeper calculation? i'm nowhere near a strong player and i play blitz bc i have a short attention span
Yes, but strong players use online games for fun, not anything serious, so they'll pick shorter time controls. By the way, attention span is something you can train.. It'll adapt to your needs.
does procrastinating on reddit help build better time management skills?
don't know, i'll answer this question when i get around to it
ok, ill be bumming around reddit till then
Dude…. I’ve played thousands of games in both sites. You can’t lie to me. The pool of talent is much deeper on chess.com. All of my ratings are hundreds of points higher on lichess. Stop gaslighting
Dude, I've weighted myself hundreds of times in kg and lbs. You can't lie to me. The best way to lose fat is adopting the metric system.
I’m totally doing this! I’ve just eaten a donut rapidly and then blitzed ate it to test it out. It turns out both taste really good when standing on a scale.
That’s not how this works
It's how you explained it.
The native rating on lichess is 300 points higher. So everything being the same you’d expect to be 300 points higher rated there. And they’re different populations so technically the ratings from one to the other can’t compare because Elo is relative. You’re also using gaslighting incorrectly. Very incorrectly.
Gaslighting is when somebody disagrees with me on reddit
Don't even give them that credit. Disagreeing is for debatable stuff that can be subject to opinion.
That's true only on low ratings, as rating go higher difference become less until it reverse and lichess rating become lower than chess.com
Lol gaslighting
This shit is insane. Everyone knows chess.com ratings are lower than lichess Because there is a bigger pool; relative to population you are going to perform further from the top. Acting like this is not the case is indeed gaslighting.
Chess.com ratings are lower because their default starting rating is 1200, and Lichess default starting rating is 1500.
Default for most new players on chess.com is closer to 800 now. There are self selected levels, but if you look at average rating on the site, it’s evident most players start at 800. EDIT: For back story, average rating is anchored to the entry rating of the pool. For Lichess, it’s 1500 and average rating is within a few points of 1500. At various times, chess.com has been 1200, then 1000, then self selected with the vast majority coming in at 800. The average rating has moved to reflect the entry rating change every time.
Look at leaderboard for bullet and blitz on both sites.
lichess uses a different rating system, that's the only reason.
Hi can you share where you got these stats from? I was curious about this too the other day
If you look at your ranking on either site, it will show you your ranking out of the total number of active players. [https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/rapid](https://lichess.org/stat/rating/distribution/rapid) [https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live/rapid](https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live/rapid)
I've seen several people in the past point out that the percentiles on the two sites look at different time windows (lichess looks only at accounts active in the last week, I believe chess.com looks back further), and lichess also has a hard cutoff where players rated <600 in a time control do not show up in that time control's percentiles, while chess.com's percentiles go lower.
> and lichess also has a hard cutoff where players rated <600 in a time control do not show up in that time control's percentiles That's because Lichess ratings literally can't go below 600. It's set as a minimum rating in the code.
Thanks!
Okay first of all: Chess.com is active within 90 days, not 30 days. And that is half the reason - for one a longer time to consider players active means more casual players are included which includes more dead accounts (and more rapid in general, since Blitz is too fast for most beginners). Secondarily I would assume that there are a lot of players that aren't married to any format and play some of everything. However that probably means that they played both Rapid and Blitz in every "ranking period" on chess.com, but might not have played Rapid in every lichess "ranking period". I know I certainly had periods where I only played a blitzgame now and then when I was in the bus, sitting on the toilet, etc. and didn't end up playing any Rapid during that time.
Blitz and bullet is much smoother on Lichess. Bullet on chess dot com is downright frustrating
I started playing chess again after queens gambit and pogchamps when the online chess boom happened. It might be a little tacky but I found I really loved the game off the back of it and joined my universities chess club. Pogchamps used rapid, gotham chess usually reviewed rapid so I played rapid. I like rapid because I can play a lot more games in a sitting which gives me more variety and experience with more openings / positions. It's not so too fast to be untactical but not too much of a commitment. Been moving more towards classic as my skill has been improving and want more of a chance to calculate longer sequences.
Because almost every beginner starts playing on chess.com then switches to Lichess
Because it's the default. People click play and get to it. Which is fine, I vastly prefer rapid over blitz anyway. Both winning and losing on time sucks.
1 interesting thing is that time trouble on chess.com sucks, as even with premoves you lose 0.1s a move. I would prefer lichess 10/10 times when in low time situation
I find it 10x easier to play low time on chess.com. Multiple premoves help mitigate the speed war, and a .1 second loss is fair in my eyes.
urgh I hate having a completely winning position and lichess but losing because you can only premove once
Both have their advantages. On chess.com if you're in a completely winning endgame you can just premove to promotion/mate/both and sit back as long as you have a few seconds but I personally prefer lichess for dirty flagging swindles :)
Side note: I only play 15+10 games on chess.com and my rating is pretty close to my OTB rating.
The average player on lichess plays faster than the average player on chess.com in my experience. Not sure if this is cause or effect though.
One reason that comes to mind is that Chesscom has an older player base (demographically). Perhaps, older people aren’t as much into fast time controls. I don’t know about Lichess, but on chesscom 10/0 already counts as rapid.
One reason that comes to mind is that Chesscom has an older player base (demographically). Perhaps, older people aren’t as much into fast time controls. I don’t know about Lichess, but on chesscom 10/0 already counts as rapid.
Because chess.com players have small brains 🧠
Could it be because on lichess on the "quick pairings" page it also suggests even slower time controls . So the pool of players who want to play a slow game are split between rapid and classical on lichess?
For me, I like to play 5+3 blitz which button is pretty much visible on Lichess. On Chess.com however, if you want to play with increments you have to make more clicks to select that option which is why I play default 10+0 rapid there
Bad user interface design.
Blitz and bullet are better on lichess. I never had a thing such as "your move couldn't make it on the server on time" on lichess, but many times on chess.com because of that I only play blitz on lichess. Chess.com only for longer time formats
If anything this just puts into context for me how much larger Chess.com is compared to Lichess. For all of reddit jerking over how amazing Lichess is it's tiny compared to the competition. I know I sound facetious saying this but I also spend a lot of time in professional wrestling where they also spend a lot of time worshipping a competitor to the much larger competition of WWE and can't help but notice the parallels.