What level is a 300 rating?

[lithander]

I'm a weak player and I also play on chess.com.

I have won games against all the bots from the beginner and intermediate bracket which goes up to 1400 rating. (3 crowns, so no tricks)
A bot with a 1000 rating seems very easy to me and I think I would win probably all games.

On rapid my rating is 1079 and these games seem very tough and my opponents seem a lot smarter than bots of the same rating. The main difference is that the bots blunder in an obvious way that I can capitalize from. The humans blunder in a much more subtle way. So there might be a queen hanging but we both miss it for multiple turns because the action and focus was on some other part of the board.

Interestingly there's again a big difference in perceived strength when you compare rapid with blitz games. My blitz rating is 408 and I just can't operate under that kind of time pressure. I don't have enough experience for instinctive play and there's not enough time to think so the play is extremely bad.

I do the best in puzzles when I know there's a good move and I can just slowly think about everything until I find it. My rating there is 1236!

Here's my chess.com profile: https://www.chess.com/member/bitsquid

Let me know if you have more questions about the experience of being very bad at chess! =)

[Uri Blass]

You are certainly not the weakest chess player and there are players with hundrends of games that are clearly below 1000.

Note that you cannot compare rating in puzzles and rating in games.
I believe the number in puzzles is usually higher but it does not mean your relative strength in puzzles is higher relative to games.


Here is the profile of somebody who has more than 1000 games in rapid and his best rating is less than 600.
He has also a low rating in puzzles but he almost never tried them.

https://www.chess.com/member/randonbhavani

I do not teach him chess and I show his profile only to show that getting above rating 1000 is not easy for everyone.

The female chess player that I teach has now more than 450 but still less than 500 and already has more than 200 games in rapid.

[Ovyron]

My blitz rating is 408 and I just can't operate under that kind of time pressure.

Could you please play 5 0 games at lichess and see at what rating you end up? I predict some 900 rating, and that'd show chess.com's ratings are just messed up and talking about their 300 rated players is meaningless.

[Uri Blass]

My blitz rating is 408 and I just can't operate under that kind of time pressure.

Could you please play 5 0 games at lichess and see at what rating you end up? I predict some 900 rating, and that'd show chess.com's ratings are just messed up and talking about their 300 rated players is meaningless.

I see no reason to assume chess.com rating is wrong and not lichess rating.

There is no wrong and right.
rating in different site mean different things.

[lkaufman]

My blitz rating is 408 and I just can't operate under that kind of time pressure.

Could you please play 5 0 games at lichess and see at what rating you end up? I predict some 900 rating, and that'd show chess.com's ratings are just messed up and talking about their 300 rated players is meaningless.

I see no reason to assume chess.com rating is wrong and not lichess rating.

There is no wrong and right.
rating in different site mean different things.

Uri is quite correct here. If you define FIDE ratings as "right", then chess.com is much more correct than Lichess anywhere in the ballpark of 2000 Elo or so. Chess.com Rapid ratings seem especially comparable with FIDE (standard) ratings, while the chess.com Blitz ratings are just much more spread apart, higher at the top, lower at the bottom, compared to FIDE. Now that chess.com is inviting all grandmasters to play in their weekly Rapid championships, and also will be holding their "Global championship" at Rapid, I expect that the chess.com Rapid ratings will be the most meaningful, reliable ratings available for anyone who plays enough games that way.

[Guenther]

My blitz rating is 408 and I just can't operate under that kind of time pressure.

Could you please play 5 0 games at lichess and see at what rating you end up? I predict some 900 rating, and that'd show chess.com's ratings are just messed up and talking about their 300 rated players is meaningless.

I see no reason to assume chess.com rating is wrong and not lichess rating.

There is no wrong and right.
rating in different site mean different things.

Uri is quite correct here. If you define FIDE ratings as "right", then chess.com is much more correct than Lichess anywhere in the ballpark of 2000 Elo or so. Chess.com Rapid ratings seem especially comparable with FIDE (standard) ratings, while the chess.com Blitz ratings are just much more spread apart, higher at the top, lower at the bottom, compared to FIDE. Now that chess.com is inviting all grandmasters to play in their weekly Rapid championships, and also will be holding their "Global championship" at Rapid, I expect that the chess.com Rapid ratings will be the most meaningful, reliable ratings available for anyone who plays enough games that way.

chess.com is completely in the hand of cheaters and if you just have a free account they simply ignore your fully proven reports.
(known very weak players permanently winning with >95% accuracy e.g.)
I would never pay a cent for an account there, also considering the ugly boards/piece fonts and everything there.
Also playing there simply feels sluggish against playing on lichess.

[Uri Blass]

My blitz rating is 408 and I just can't operate under that kind of time pressure.

Could you please play 5 0 games at lichess and see at what rating you end up? I predict some 900 rating, and that'd show chess.com's ratings are just messed up and talking about their 300 rated players is meaningless.

I see no reason to assume chess.com rating is wrong and not lichess rating.

There is no wrong and right.
rating in different site mean different things.

Uri is quite correct here. If you define FIDE ratings as "right", then chess.com is much more correct than Lichess anywhere in the ballpark of 2000 Elo or so. Chess.com Rapid ratings seem especially comparable with FIDE (standard) ratings, while the chess.com Blitz ratings are just much more spread apart, higher at the top, lower at the bottom, compared to FIDE. Now that chess.com is inviting all grandmasters to play in their weekly Rapid championships, and also will be holding their "Global championship" at Rapid, I expect that the chess.com Rapid ratings will be the most meaningful, reliable ratings available for anyone who plays enough games that way.

chess.com is completely in the hand of cheaters and if you just have a free account they simply ignore your fully proven reports.
(known very weak players permanently winning with >95% accuracy e.g.)
I would never pay a cent for an account there, also considering the ugly boards/piece fonts and everything there.
Also playing there simply feels sluggish against playing on lichess.

I usually do not see a reason to suspect cheating in games of weak players in chess.com
I also think at all levels if people do not play in chess.com for money prizes they do not need to worry maybe they play a cheater in a small minority of their games.

[Ovyron]

I see no reason to assume chess.com rating is wrong

Because chess.com loves messing up the ratings in a regular basis, please take a look:

https://www.chess.com/news/view/daily-c ... %20amounts.

Daily Chess Rating Adjustment

1500-1599 get 50 rating points added
1600-1699 get 100 rating points added
1700-1799 get 150 rating points added
1800-1899 get 200 rating points added
1900-1999 get 250 rating points added
2000-2099 get 300 rating points added
2100-2199 get 350 rating points added
2200+ get 400 rating points added

Which one was right? The one before the adjustment or the one after the adjustment? Whatever you answer there will be another adjustment eventually, so it's not correct right now or it will eventually be not correct.

Do you see it now?

[lkaufman]

I see no reason to assume chess.com rating is wrong

Because chess.com loves messing up the ratings in a regular basis, please take a look:

https://www.chess.com/news/view/daily-c ... %20amounts.

Daily Chess Rating Adjustment

1500-1599 get 50 rating points added
1600-1699 get 100 rating points added
1700-1799 get 150 rating points added
1800-1899 get 200 rating points added
1900-1999 get 250 rating points added
2000-2099 get 300 rating points added
2100-2199 get 350 rating points added
2200+ get 400 rating points added

Which one was right? The one before the adjustment or the one after the adjustment? Whatever you answer there will be another adjustment eventually, so it's not correct right now or it will eventually be not correct.

Do you see it now?

Adjusting the ratings if you see a problem is reasonable; chess.com boosted all the bullet ratings by some constant a while ago to bring them into line (on average) with the blitz ratings, a good decision I would say. In the specific case you cite, I believe they retracted the change after further consideration. Their blitz ratings do seem to be too "spread out" compared to either LiChess or FIDE, but I don't know the reason for this, other than the fact that blitz just has far fewer draws than standard chess. This hasn't happened so far with their Rapid ratings, where if anything the ratings are a bit on the low side compared to FIDE, at least for titled players.