Well, just don't be too hard on yourself. After all, being good can be a bit subjective. Also the difference between : "I did good" and "The other person made a mistake and I won" can be very small indeed. After all, without mistakes every game would be a draw. So it is easy to be overly harsh on yourself and basically say that you never did well, and that you always win because other people made mistakes.
As for your games, I don't have too much time to go over them, but I saw the Ruy Lopez one and I want to give you one specific advice:
In Ruy Lopez games, when white takes the knight with his bishop, you should usually take with d pawn and not b pawn. The pawn structure is a bit better, you don't have an isolated pawn, and you have 2 instead of 3 pawn islands.
Check this example in Exchange Ruy Lopez.
If you have taken with b pawn, you don't have the same trick. You could still win the pawn back with Qe7 instead, but the structure would be worse. Taking with d pawn has an advantage to open the diagonal for the bishop to develop. Sure, b pawn opens a different diagonal, but as I've said the structure is a bit better.
In the game, it was slightly later that he took your knight and there were subtle differences in the position, but still taking with d pawn was better.
So it is not bad to sometimes post your games. You might gain some concrete knowledge that way.
Looks like you're in luck, Ben Finegold just released a video on this exact topic. Here's the link or you can find it on his channel on youtube @GMBenjaminFinegold https://youtu.be/ZGvV__eRvOg?si=RfAuDW9DdhF3tonl. You'll probably find it helpful as even I did.
The main point is that all these decisions are almost irrelevant. Low rated chess games are decided by big mistakes. These fine positional details have no effect on the outcome of a game.
For example, in the first game you sacrificed 3 pawns in the early stages for not much compensation, and you could win back only one of them. Later, you underestimated and allowed white's f6 move and after that it was game over. These are the points of the game that are worth analyzing, not the completely unimportant moment on move 10. Your Ba6 move was okay.
I never got to 800. It started me there. I am only there out of luck. Ive had to start restricting to because it keeps putting me against much higher ranked people. I loose less when I loose and gain more when I win.
I get the basics aren’t law. But it feels like they should provide some consistency. I am fine being a bad player, as long and I am consistent. It’s odd betting someone 1000 then loosing to someone lower to me.
And I don’t know how true this is, but I’ve heard that 1500-2500 players tend to break those principles more but master level return to the basics a lot more. It sounds cool at least.
I see now that you haven't played too many games, so your rating is not completely established, but it is getting there. If you stay there for a while, you are 800 on merit, regardless on where you started.
The way it works is that in the beginning, rating shifts will be great for winning and losing (like +/- 200 or something like that), and in the end it will be +/-8 against similarly rated opposition, when you play some games. So if you remain there after playing regularly for some time, it will not be due to luck.
It is not odd to lose against lower rated people and win better players, it is just statistics. We are not robots, and chess is a game where a simple bad move means that you can lose to much weaker player. It is not basketball where you have a turnover and it is only a simple lost possession. Here you make a bad move, and the game can be over.
I lost to some sub 1 000 players in unrated games I played. It doesn't happen often, but it happens. On the other hand, I have wins against better players than myself.
If you are for instance 800 rated, it doesn't mean that you will win automatically every game against 600 rated player. It means that you will have (on average) 7.5 points out of 10. And against 1000 rated players you will on average score 2.5 points.
For instance IM Eric Rosen lost due to back rank mate to someone on lichess ranked below 1 000. It is easy to switch off when you expect to win. It happens sometimes.
As for breaking principles. Well, I don't know. I follow them a lot, but if I see material I will go for it, or if I see a reason to play f3 or f4 I will go for it. So, I am not breaking them too much, one have to develop fast in most cases in order to not be lost, but there will be some concrete moves where you need to do something.
One thing is certain, 2 500+ people know a lot of things. They are either titled players, or at the very least very strong untitled players.
They understand openings they play, plus they have memorized some moves along with it. I understand some things and just by playing games and reviewing them I have memorized some moves here and there (more for sharper openings which I do not play a lot), but generally I am far far away from some extensive opening knowledge. I follow principles and break them where I thing situation demands it.
What I have noticed in my games against let's say 1 000 - 1 200 rated people is that a lot of them break principles in a sense that they start developing and then they go for an unsound but overly aggressive move. This can work sometimes as nobody likes to be attacked, but this kind of play can hinder development in the long run. It is hope chess.
But it is interesting as you see some point to their play because it will not always backfire and sometime you might lose horribly if you are playing completely passively.