Sceptical

Having played on Lychess for a few years and getting to a classical chess rating of 1500 and a rapid rating of 1340, I am sceptical of Chess.com.  I have played 5 or 6 games against opponents of below 1000 and they haven't hardly put a foot wrong. This would be remarkable for 1 game, but 6?  I have played the Vienna opening, the Pirc defence, the Caro Kaan and they are playing perfect lines well into the middle game with zero blunders. Could be a coincidence I suppose but 6  under 1000 players not making any blunders??  Makes me think something is not quite right here.

If you last 6 losses, two played well, without real errors, one was closed for fair play violations, and three had blunders and poor moves.

.

Yes, I did make blinders but you need to look at how well my opponents played based on their rating

They cheat and there’s no visible punishment, instead the honest player is wrong because you know … you shouldn’t have made an error in that x move…

Just played someone with a rating of 860. Played the Vienna gambit. The guy refused the pawn sacrifice. What 860 player would do that. I'm done with this site, it's not real.

> I'm done with this site, it's not real

Bye

I'm 1000 on lichess, but I'm 600 on here. I'm pretty sure lichess has rating inflation I do NOT play like a 1000

Chess rating is not absolute and depends on the community you play in

The rating pools and inflation/deflation curves are just different.

I don't understand the bit about 'depends on what community you play', As a newbie I just hit the 15/10 button for a rapid game. It doesn't make sense to me that a player rated below 1000 can seem to understand the first 6 or 7 moves against the Pirc, Caro-Kann defence or the Ruy Lopez or Vienna openings, almost perfectly without any inaccuracies. I'm not saying they don't make mistakes or blunders as the game progresses but don't all of us under an ELO of say 1800. I would think that both Chess.com and Lychess are determining our level based on how we play after a sufficient number of games, Surely they can't be hugely different. If they are, and we play on both websites, how are we meant to properly understand our estimated rating. Perhaps it's that I played so long on Lychess first. All a bit confusing.

> we play on both websites, how are we meant to properly understand our estimated rating

Ratings are valid within the websites where these ratings are calculated, its pointless to match ratings between websites

But are we not all trying to get a true rating against the official FIDE ratings. If Magnus is rated 2837 for standard chess, and a young kid says I want to be as good as him one day and starts playing on both chess,com and Lychess, as he progresses which rating does he take notice of if they're different. They are never going to be perfect I know because they're estimated ratings but if you don't have a standard to work against, you will never know your rating if someone asks you. Unless you say, oh well on Lychess I'm 1540 but on Chess,com I'm 1050. Maybe it's late and I cannot get my head around it. But I tell you this, if Magnus had watched some of the games I played against opponents of less than 900, and he analysed their play, he wouldn't believe they were that low.

It’s the same reason USCF and ECF are different ratings than FIDE. They use different rating systems and have a much smaller rating pool. The smaller federations generally have up to 200 points higher than the global FIDE. Lichess and Chess.com are similar in that they use different rating system and lichess is a much smaller rating pool, plus the floor 400 on lichess, at one point it was 600, and its 100 on chess.com. 
I’ve almost hit 2700 on lichess and I can’t break 2500 here, it’s not that big of a deal, what matters is if you’re winning at least half your games, you’re in the right rating for that site.