I'm around 1500 in normal chess after 4 months of playing and studying ‚ but I'm 1650 in Antichess after playing it for a few weeks without studying at all‚ so yes‚ in my opinion‚ this variant is way easier than normal chess.
Maybe the LM title should just be given at 2400 and not 2250‚ for example.
I see I got page-flipped so I'll just post this one again.
Anti-chess is objectively easier than normal chess, provided one has an abundance of free time and a good memory.
The only rational first move for white to make is e3, as other opening moves are demonstrably suboptimal (c4, g3 and Nh3) or immediately losing (every other first move). The only variations which are not completely solved from white's optimal first move are the 1.e3-c5 and 1.e3-b5 variations. Despite not being solved, they provide white with a substantial advantage. Every other e3 variation can be forcibly won by white.
Yeah, there are two things going on here.
1) Antichess is an easier game, as has been pointed out. With so many more moves absolutely forced, it's just easier to calculate.
2) The general skill level of people playing the game is also much lower, relative to what is attainable in the game.
With all the material available for study and improving at regular chess, it's easy to forget how much better even a 1300 player is compared to someone who's just started trying to figure out regular chess on their own.
In antichess, very few people have spent a lot of time studying the game, so it's naturally going to take a lot less time to be better than average at the game.
Antichess is a variant that often lower-rated players in other variants of chess are good at, as it is a game where very few people make preparation.
usually forced wins can be found accidentally during antichess, so it might seeem very very easy for lower-rated players, but some people may fall into traps set by higher rated ones.
for me I think antichess makes me bad at reg so I try to stay away fro m antichess