2000+ on lichess is nothing to write home about...its probably about 1500 elo FIDE...please dont think a high rating on lichess actually means anything. ty.
@Parahumanoid - Having just started playing classical after a lot of blitz on here, I'm finding that there's a distinct difference in the strength of the 2 rating pools.
2000 blitz is pretty good (maybe 1800 FIDE, or slightly higher?). 2000 classical is probably 200-250 points lower, maybe more.
2000 blitz is pretty good (maybe 1800 FIDE, or slightly higher?). 2000 classical is probably 200-250 points lower, maybe more.
#21 Reaching a rating milestone is more important as it serves as evidence of improvement and the motivation to keep improving, rather than people simply being satisfied with their current level; everyone wants to get better.
Secondly, 2000 in lichess classical is somewhere around 1600 FIDE in my opinion, which is already a fairly good player.
The higher in rating, generally, the smaller the gap between FIDE and lichess classical ratings, is my impression, unless you are at the very top. Then there is no one better than you to regulate your rating.
Secondly, 2000 in lichess classical is somewhere around 1600 FIDE in my opinion, which is already a fairly good player.
The higher in rating, generally, the smaller the gap between FIDE and lichess classical ratings, is my impression, unless you are at the very top. Then there is no one better than you to regulate your rating.
pants
Just hit 2222 in classical! Not sure I'll make it to 3333... :)
@FletchMK64
What's the secret to your game improvement? The second batch is gorgeous!
What's the secret to your game improvement? The second batch is gorgeous!
@voronn09
Thanks, I did enjoy those games.
To be honest, I don't think I've actually improved that much, if at all. I do play slightly better with longer time controls, but the main difference is that I reckon there's something like a 200-300 point strength gap between blitz and classical ratings here (so a 2000 blitz player ought to be getting to 2200 classical).
Looking at my stats for example, I'm scoring roughly 70% in both blitz and classical, but the average rating of my opponents in blitz is 1850 whereas in classical it's over 2000.
Thanks, I did enjoy those games.
To be honest, I don't think I've actually improved that much, if at all. I do play slightly better with longer time controls, but the main difference is that I reckon there's something like a 200-300 point strength gap between blitz and classical ratings here (so a 2000 blitz player ought to be getting to 2200 classical).
Looking at my stats for example, I'm scoring roughly 70% in both blitz and classical, but the average rating of my opponents in blitz is 1850 whereas in classical it's over 2000.
@FletchMK64
Maybe you noticed that lichess-masters give for 2450 blitz rating. And 2350 the classical rating. That is, the administration believes that the blitz rating increase easier. You 100 points of lichess master.
Maybe you noticed that lichess-masters give for 2450 blitz rating. And 2350 the classical rating. That is, the administration believes that the blitz rating increase easier. You 100 points of lichess master.
Tbh, 2450 Blitz is already something like FM level while 2350 Classical is noticeably less, somewhere like 2100 FIDE
Source: 2350 classical player that sees 2450 FMs
Source: 2350 classical player that sees 2450 FMs
I'm with @JiangoFett on this one - at my current playing standard I hope and expect to make 2300-2350 in Classical, whereas I don't think I'll hit much more than 2200 Blitz.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.