Note that 2000 on lichess is probably weaker than 2000 on chess.com (or USCF or FIDE)

That's true, I'm 2050-2100 lichess, around 1800 on chess.com. Never played a rated tournament but played some rated players who were 1400-1500 rated USCF, and they were roughly my strength, maybe a bit better. Still the Delta bot, easy mode, was much, much better than me.

▲

fragmede 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Casually just in the top 2-3 percent of chess players globally world wide humble brag. I'm not that good at it, just a little bit!

▲

jmb99 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean, if you’re in the top 3 percent of anything, yes that’s pretty good, but not unbelievably so, especially in the field of chess. If for instance you randomly put together a classroom full of chess players, there’s decent odds one of them is better than top 3%. Two classrooms and it’s almost a certainty.

Put another way, looking at chess.com users, there are ~6 million people who would count as the top 3 percent. Difficult to achieve, yes, but if 6 million people can achieve it, it’s not really a “humble brag,” it’s just a statement.

	▲	refulgentis 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It made me smile to hear “I’m only 97th percentile” isn’t a humblebrag. You may be employing an old saw of mine, you can make people* react however you want by leaning on either percentages or whole numbers when you shouldn’t. * who don’t have strong numeracy and time to think

▲

mcmoor 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I heard it's never intended to be the same since initial rating for Lichess and chess.com respectively is 1500 and 1200. So they should have 300 rating difference on average. Quite fitting with what the other commenter claims actually.

▲

citrus1330 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's still significantly stronger than the average online chess player