Why is my rating so low?

I know I shouldn't focus too much on rating, especially since I've been playing for less than 2 months, but I'm still curious about why my ratings seem to be all over the place, and it's almost 400 points lower here than on lichess:

Here on chess.com, my Rapid chess rating has never been higher than 747, and mostly hovers at around 650 (I've played about 350-400 of these games in the past 6 weeks, mostly 10 min).

On lichess.org, which I've been on for the same amount of time, my rapid chess game rating hovers at around 1000 for the same game types.

Here on chess.com, I'm able to consistently get 3 stars beating the bots up to a rating of 1700 (1700 is where I can only get 2 stars, because I usually need a hint during those games).  My puzzle rating here is 1400-1500 (1300 on lichess). I know that playing rapid chess against real people will yield a lower rating than playing puzzles or bots, but is it typical to be over 1000 points lower in your real games than vs bots?

And, I read that ratings on chess.com tend to be higher than those on lichess, but only by about 100 points. Mine is the opposite, and the difference is 350-400 points. That post was written a year ago, though, so I was also wondering if the rating system had changed since then. Thanks for any input (I know that some answers will be that I should just pay attention to learning the game instead of what my rating is, but it's hard for me to feel like I've improved when my rating isn't going up and when it's so low here versus elsewhere).

Because ratings are started higher on lichess. They start everyone at 1500 while on Chess.com, people can start as low as 400.

Thanks for the input--I didn't realize that the bots are not helpful to improve your playing. Also, good to know about the puzzle ratings not being relevant & that lichess has higher ratings. I will keep studying & playing real people and hopefully will be able to improve my rating over time

Online ratings are highly unreliable, especially at the lower levels. Players below 1000 are so inconsistent, with so many mistakes, that their results are not very indicative of their skill level.

if you want a better idea of your actual skill level, join an OTB club, play only slow time controls, and discuss your games with stronger players.

Thanks so much for the advice about how to improve my game!

hi guys what is up

Both Chess.com and Lichess use variations of the Elo rating system, but each platform has its own specific algorithm, which leads to different ratings.

Thanks, everyone, especially those who recommended the OTB club--I found one nearby, and they have a group for people who are unrated or below 600, which is probably a great place for me to begin. I'm going to try it out!

thats true, one day I play like I am 2000 rated, and the next I play like martin.

Hello I have noticed that strange things happen very often on this site during the game. I play fast chess, mostly for 10 minutes, and in the last few days my pieces have made moves without my participation at the very climax of the game three times, and the moves were losing for me. As a result, I lost a piece or my position on the board worsened. So I lost several games that I could have won. This suggests that there is cheating here. After such cases, interest in playing on this site decreases sharply.Naturally, this also affects the rating.

If this is your reasoning, then I'd argue that people blunder this way too. Every blunder is "random". In my experience, I do climb up the ratings easier after I consistently beat a high rated bot.

When I tryhard the rating system, my usual strategy is to consistently aim towards beating a higher level bot and then climb the ladder until I peak. When I reach a rating where I usually win 50 50, I repeat the process. So far, it's worked well for me.

It would make more sense to me if you said something along the lines of "bots don't play with time controls so it takes away the ability to play with time controls which would affect your ability to play against actual people" to that I'd somewhat agree.

I've noticed that even though there's a spike in tactical ability, part of me has to get used to playing with time controls again after playing with bots too much.

It could be that you have little talent for the game and no matter how hard you work at it, you simply won't improve that much. Nevertheless, still play if you enjoy it just like many golfers and tennis still play even though they hardly win any games.

I think it's still too early to say that. He's a few month old player. I'd say that he's being a bit too harsh with himself by thinking that he could skyrocket past 1k fast. He probably just needs to change his approach. I would imagine that he'd be just fine if he aimed for a slow but steady climb.

To be honest with you, I would preferably say that your rating would be low because

1. You don't win enough games to boost your elo up

2. You play against players that are actually advanced, (what I mean is that they are rated 300-500 but are actually players who are 1700 rated, it could happen)

3. Lastly, you probably don't study openings and strategies during middle games and end games.

What you can do to help your rating go up if by learning more openings, strategies, middle games, end games, doing more puzzles, looking at your game review/analysis, or watch other good players such as grandmasters play.

Thanks, everyone, this is all good advice and helpful.

Yes, the time constraints definitely impact play, that's a good point about the bots. Other experienced players have also recommended playing games with higher time limits to allow myself more time to think, and that's good advice. I guess the conclusion about the bots is that they could help me to improve, but I shouldn't apply their ratings to myself--just use them for the experience.

I also think it's too early to give up and say that I'm just no good at the game. I am not saying I have the capacity to become a grand master, but I definitely think I have the ability to become higher rated than 650 with work, practice, and dedication (haha, more so than if I tried playing golf or tennis--I don't have any interest in those games, so I think I have a better chance of becoming a decent chess player than a decent athlete!). If I haven't improved at all after a year, then maybe it's true that I lack the ability completely, but I'll give it some more time first.

Oh, and yes, actually, I have been studying a LOT, which is part of why I was feeling so discouraged. I've been reading, watching tons of learning videos, studying tactics, strategy, endgames, openings, analyzing my own games, etc. I've been spending several hours every single day either playing or studying (it hasn't even been two full months yet, so I'm probably being impatient; I just wanted to see some sort of mark of improvement, but every time my rating goes up, it just falls back down again).

One thing I haven't done much of is watch grandmasters play, so that is a good suggestion. I am worst at my middlegame, and haven't found as many opportunities for learning about that aspect of the game (it has been easier for me to find resources for the other aspects of the game I just listed, so I'm not sure how to learn about that part). Anyone know a good way to study middlegames?

Thanks again to all of you for guidance, everyone!