What's the strongest opponent you've beaten and the weakest you've lost to? For me, there's about 300 difference between best win and worst loss. In OTB tournaments you occasionally see people perform 400 points higher/lower than their rating. But look at these games below:

A 2100 beats a 2400 ... then gets destroyed by a 1500 ... then loses to a 1000

My best win is a 2048, and I don't know my worst loss. What sucks is, my average opponent is only around 1500, because I started out low (1000-1400 range) and am only now playing higher players. (1900-2400 range) The title is accurate, though, since some days I'll lose to players who barely know their opening, and other days I can beat my old chess coach.

Having a ~1500 average opponent looks bad when your rating is 2000+, because people think you boost, but my average opponent in the last few games has been around 2000, so I don't feel too bad about it.

My best was a online unrated 5 min blitz win against a 2300 an a unrated 3 min blitz win over a 2684 player.In both i lost several before i scored the point as i find the very good players will at times play you a lot of games until they get bored or if you luck out an win.I have several wins over players online in the 2000 to 2100 range.Last Sunday i went 9 WINS an 21 lost AN 5 draws in 5 min blitz against a player who back in the 1990 s had a 2100rating an At 10 min TO 5min had A 2205 rating.He was fired up as when he not i always would have had about 3 to 4 more wins an about two more draws.IN slow chess a win in the mid 90s over a 2023 PLAYER which is about when i stoped playing tournament chess.By the way i never play on this site as i get knocked off an it costs points i play on fics an playchess an on chess assistant.Also try the interface BABAS to play on fics its free an i like it more than my playchess setup.

SukerPuncher333

In response to the games you just posted, I think one word sums up the experience:

The first word that comes to mind is . . .

1. CHEATING? I can somewhat believe a 2100 beating a 2400 in the sense that GMs lose to IMs and USCF National Masters beat GMs on occasion. But still it's hard to believe. I'm always shocked when I see like a 2150 FIDE beat a GM in a tournament. I don't know a lot about high-level chess, but I know even something as small as 10-20 rating points is a huge deal when you achieve ratings like that.

Now that I'm a strong 1900-2000 I can't even remember the last time I lost to a 1500. I feel like I would never lose to a "real" 1500 anyway. The difference between 1500 and 1900 is pretty substantial. And the difference between 2100 and 2400 is even greater, I think.

Clearly the person who is rated 1000 has a performance rating that is much higher. So unless he spent like 2 years away from Chess.com and came back to his old account able to play at like a 2000+ strength, it's probably someone else using his account. 

Another good word that pops into my head is . . .

1. SANDBAGGING?

Without a floor, dropping games to people rated 1000 points below you is a nice way to absolutely tank your rating only to build it back up again in tournaments when you magically start beating titled players.