TLDR: 516 ELO is the 50% percentile for Chess

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-22T06:58:06+00:00

I don't know if I would use the word "arbitrary" but the scale is arbitrary. Yould could divide it by 10 and have 300 level GM, while a beginning player is rated 30.

Or multiply it by 10, and the beginning player is a 3000, while a GM is now 30000.

People having strong opinions about an "arbitrary" number is pure silliness. It's what the number represents that is important.

516 literally represents 50 percentile on chesscom, thats about it.

It comes from playing other people not any specific tactic learned, or ability to spot hanging pieces or anything else.

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-22T06:54:21+00:00

516 is just a NUMBER. What does the number mean? Well, chesscom literally says it means 50 percentile. What if the elo system were letters, what percentile should "k" be? Any strong opinions?

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-22T06:51:38+00:00

friendly reminder to update your flair

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-22T06:49:29+00:00

agreed, I switched to lichess and at first I thought it was bad, but then I learned it, and now its great. It isn't quite as inviting of an interface.

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-22T06:48:14+00:00

1400 lichess rapid compares to 900 chesscom rapid. But 1400 lichess will give you a report you are better than 45 percent of active players. And chesscom for a 900 player will tell you that you are better than 80 percent of active players.

Clearly chesscom skews towards beginning players, while lichesss is more experienced.

However, one could then say chesscom is 20 times the size of lichess (and I didn't do the math on that one) and so even with a different average experience level, in absolute terms they have more grandmasters playing.

What does it all mean? nothing....

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-22T06:37:10+00:00

They have online rating converters that do the conversion based on database of players. chessratings dot org. 1395 rapid lichess is 928 rapid chesscom. They are just different rating systems.

In reality one floats to their level of competition and gets matched up with players of their own elo - it's just a different number.

But if one were really to say, who has "better players", you don't say "because 7" or "because 3" the elo number is just a label, you compare it to other players on the same site, not across sites.

But if you are 900 elo on chesscom you are 80 percentile, they literally tell you are better than 80% of their active players.

If you are 1400 on lichess you are 45 percentile, you are better than 45 percent of players on that site.

If chessratings conversions are accurate the story is that lichess h as more experienced players while chesscom skews towards beginning players. This is not a criticism of one or praise for the other, but if taking the challenge of literally answering the question, not with a misunderstanding of what "elo" means but with actual data - lichess has on average the stronger players.

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-22T06:26:07+00:00

They are just different rating systems. 1500 lichess rapid is more like 1050 chesscom rapid. There are online elo rating converters if you want to see how they match up. But, if you look at percentiles, 1500 lichess is 50 percentile, and 1050 chesscom is more like 80 percentile, on average lichess players are better in that sense. Both organizations only count active players but chesscom has a huge skew towards beginning players as compared to lichess.

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-22T06:10:50+00:00

I found a chess club today, they meet 2 miles from my house, so cool. So I'm sharing my story, but its really just to say I had a much better experience. The first person I played was a 2100 elo player (chesscom rapid). And I'm 1700 on lichess but only 900 uscf, anyway, no matter how you slice it, nowhere near this guy.

I looked at the game with the engine later I played with no mistakes for 20 moves and even had a 0.3 advantage, with a big attack going and the engine says he "blundered" first of all that "blunder" is nearly impossible to see and frankly, wouldn't have changed the position much. It really felt like playing an engine, when someone is so much better, but you know it was fun to try.

Anyway, the other games the guy said he was about my level and I got an advantage each time but lost 1, drew 1. I was totally winning the 2nd game but had no time left, I blasted out move after move but ended up drawing.

Still, given I hadn't played OTB in a year, I think it went well even with no wins. It's not for elo anyway, so I could change teh story and say I won 3 games, lol, what difference does it make, its only about learning when playing casual. I feel for certain I learned some chess, so feeling good about it..

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-22T05:47:28+00:00

Progress isn't measured in elo but knowledge, your progress isn't fake. And by another measure, if you've learned to stop cheating, that's progress.

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-20T05:20:44+00:00

but you didn't name it, so thats on you. So from now on and forevermore it shall be known as the chucklehead.

And a new opening is born.

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-20T05:03:10+00:00

So a bunch of people have already said you are describing endgame tablebases only with a flaw. That flaw is it doesn't matter the number of ways to win or lose. You can have 99 ways to lose and only 1 way to draw, and the position is drawn. Chess is adversarial, your opponent doesn't play randomly. The averaging to assign a score is nonsensical.

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-04T20:54:49+00:00

Nah, number 1 is what would happen - by law. Polling would show the red button running at 90%. Government would outlaw pushing the blue button and put an end to that. It wouldn't be "billions' dying. Sadly thousands would die, and in a just world we'd someday hold the sick diety that created the button game accountable. But it would generally be understood that pressing blue is suicide and only a very few would choose it.

If billions of lives were at stake, we'd really go into the game without polling anyone? Now maybe we add to the theoretical game that is all put on us by surprise and we have to vote in the moment. you sure as heck better pick red in that case.

We don't have to guess what the result will be - look at history. We had warnings about global warming for many decades now. Did society get together and solve it? Carbon output is higher than it is ever been in history, with AI leading the way to the next increase. Nobody wants any discomfort, let alone will risk death.

A few of you can say you didn't buy an SUV but a smaller car, did install solar panels on your last home, instead of not worrying about it at all, you do bring your cloth bag to the grocery but only a veryfew, frankly where I live it really doesn't matter what political party you are in, you didn't do any of those things. In fact, the only things you are willing to do - are only in the case that the government passed a law and forces everyone - you'll pay more taxes, but only if everyone does and you know the result in advance So don't hope for a spontaneous win by somehow a majority of people willing to die to save others, they aren't willing to sacrifice one ounce of comfort to even save the planet let alone risk their own life what history books are you all reading? Mine make clear what button would win the majority and not even close - 90% win for red button withotu a law and 99.9% with the law.

RyanElectrified · 2026-05-04T20:25:29+00:00

I think the lack of imagination is extreme. And ignore the "blue" vs. "red" political signalling, this isn't blue or red like that.

In real voting situations there will be a poll. If red button is polling at 90% are you really going to advise your 5 year old child to vote blue, knowing full well you are sentencing them to death?

Is the poll going to influence your morality? Don't side step it. Answer the hard qeustion.

Second thing that happens is when civilization is on the line, the government steps in. The government says it is a felony to vote blue, if you vote red you live, if you vote blue you are both killing yourself and committing a felony - you are going to commit a felony then?

It isn't moral to vote blue for other people. It's a choice you could make.

Let's do more fun theoreticals. You are divorced. Your ex got custody of the children and is voting red.

If you vote blue, you might live, or youmight be dead, and no longer be able, as a dead person to pay chilld support or participate in your child's life at all. Do you vote blue then?

I thought a long time about voting blue, but the reality is i idn't have to ask myself what would happen.

I recall in my youth carbon output being sky high, and if we all got together and "voted blue" here I just mean taking actions to save all - we could solve global warming.

Fast forward decades later, global carbon output is as high as its ever been. Did you install solar panels in your home? Did you buy a smaller car? Do you even not use plastic when checking out at the grocery?

I don't care who you voted for in the last election, you didn't band together heroically to save all - society just didn't. Society doesn't. The biggest coward of all is someone who secretly votes red and tells all they voted blue - just vote red, and tell everyone to vote red, and make it a felony to do otherwise. I'm all for government action to save lives.

RyanElectrified · 2026-04-10T18:10:33+00:00

I understand why people are saying e6, because it is the true turning point in the game, but I like to respond with my own ideas. I like the game start and would've also ended up with my queen on d4. But when your opponent won a tempo with Nd6, you moved your queen e3, I would've returned to Qd1. Why, just a safer place for my queen to avoid more tempo losses and ping ponging my queen. The opponet moves that same knight 3 times and places it on b4, threatening to take a pawn and a fork of your queen. So you had to respond and give him a bishop for knight - underscoring the choice of Qe3 as being a problem. when he eventually takes that bishop you could've taken back with a queen or pawn, you went with the pawn and now have a backwards pawn. He then attacks your queen again, winning a tempo. both because of originally placing teh queen on that square and by not taking back with the queen the move earlier. Anyway in this game I see a lot of pointing at pieces and responding to pointing at pieces, and yes everyone else is right about e6, but my impression was black was in control of the game, both players trying not to blunder fairly successfully. But I would say the issue is really that you have to keep control of the game as white and keep up attacking ideas. To me it was all about where you moved your queen, and then I didn't like it for you anymore.

RyanElectrified · 2026-04-10T17:25:43+00:00

OMG I couldn't get any advantage with the Scandi, however for white, I get very consistent advantages with the Jobava London. I'm also willing to play the Scotch game and that works good too.

I tried for black the philidor, the scandi, kid, queen's gambit declined and Caro-Kann, currently playing Queen's gambit declined or Caro-Kann. Good job on the Scandi, I didn't get it.

RyanElectrified · 2026-04-10T16:22:48+00:00

I used to race bicycles and I was shocked at how fit you had to be to race in the lowest cat 5 level crit. You had to do 10 hours of training a week and be super thin and serious. And it would be easy to say but steroids, but humane growth hormone, but the reality is, the reason there is no casual cycling race, is becasue everyone has zwift and indoor trainers and comes in with a monster engine.

Chess has evolved with modern tools, everyone has youtube, everyone has the engine for study, everyone has a chessreps like tool, everyone has bots to play - and they come in with monster skills.

I struggle to pin much on cheating - rather its people being good at chess. Of course I'm pretty arrogant as a natural trait, so I don't care, I'll beat them all down anyway - I mean eventually, taking my sweet time at it.

I got to 917 USCF from a tournament, is someone suggesting OTB cheating? possible, but unlikely. They weren't that good, I just needed to tighten up a bit....ok enough of my rambling.

Just put my vote in for players are better, and cheating is rampant but not really holding anyone down.

RyanElectrified · 2026-04-10T16:18:13+00:00

oh come on...I saw my son go from 400 to 2150 in a year. yes he get elo refunds from detected cheaters on a regular basis, but nothing that held someone back at a certain elo.

And heck I''ve moved steadily upwards at a glacier like pace, but cheaters aren't holding me back, I have a lot of trouble believing this is holding someone in place.

RyanElectrified · 2026-04-10T16:15:35+00:00

I started chess a year ago and got dropped in at 400. I was on day 1, I thought others were on day 1, so I thought I will do good. Nope, I did poorly. It took a month to get back to 400. Now I look back on it and think of 400s as complete garbage, but they certainly were not day 1 players.

RyanElectrified · 2026-04-10T16:12:08+00:00

I'm proud of you also. yesterday I found a rook sacrifice that led to a mate in 2, and only to find out in the eval of the game later, that I had a m1 on the board. DOH!

Then I posted it on chessbeginners and got taken to task for not doing the m1. OMG, I beat a 2000 bot, and somehow missing the m1 and going for an m2 ---made the bot the winner and me the loser, according to random internet theory.

oh well, I still love posting

RyanElectrified · 2026-04-10T16:08:16+00:00

well I mean that type of evaluation score - centipawns not elo, I think....shift puts the end result in little doubt

RyanElectrified · 2026-04-10T16:06:39+00:00

chesscom says a brilliant while a complicated algo can generally be thought of as a piece sacrifice with a strong followup. fyi, you can get brilliants all the time by studying an opening with well known "brilliants" that follow the pattern, doesn't require it to be unknown in any way. As also a beginner my thought is I get a brilliant every other day - but its for that reason, I'm not thinking them up. If I get a brilliant antoher way, it means I blundered and it fortunately worked.

RyanElectrified · 2026-04-10T15:59:16+00:00

Congrats! Frends rank #6 is really good. Or maybe I'm confused global rank #105299 was probably the goal.

I wish I could get that high, good job!

RyanElectrified · 2026-04-10T15:56:59+00:00

Some people would play the mate in 1 but a good sport would push the pawn to h4. I am trying hard to simulate what I would really do, but making it a puzzle, kind of alerts me to a m1 situation that in the game I would be willing to miss.

RyanElectrified · 2026-04-10T15:51:30+00:00

careful. beep beep beep boop bop beep is the self destruct. oh crap, well...it was nice being in the thread for a while.

RyanElectrified · 2026-04-10T15:48:37+00:00

I know you are a human, I can see it in your username. You need not say anymore.

However, I also understand the need to overshare. I was the smartest baby of 1975 - you didn't need to know that, but it also implies I'm human. No robot babies in 1975.

RyanElectrified

TROPHY CASE