Beginners? Really?

Was that since yesterday then?

You've played 22 games here. Because you've started from 1 200, that wasn't enough games to get your rating to its real value. That is why you haven't been matched with people of your strength. People you are playing now are around 400 rating and they are truly beginners as you are, they are just making less amount of mistakes.

At certain point, you will start getting opponents of your own strength. If you've started from 400, that process would be a bit shorter.

He is the problem he is complaining about. He didn't set his starting level correctly. Just donkey behaviour.

Nice trolling you are doing in rated blitz. You are definitely a problem as well. 

What is with all that other site posts?

chess.com has the largest user base and most certainly has a lot more beginners than that other site.

The issue here is that OP just didn't reach his real rating because he started high and didn't play enough games. There are many people here rated below 400, so he will surely get to play people around his strength.

Blitz is a range of time controls. On Chess.com it is slower than Bullet (1 minute per player for the game) and faster than Rapid (10 or more minutes per player for the game).  The international federation (FIDE) does not have a Bullet rating but it does have a Blitz rating for those players who have played FIDE-rated Blitz games.  In the US Blitz Chess is also referred to as Speed Chess but Blitz has been the favored term since pre-internet days.  I don't know if FIDE ever called it Speed Chess of if it always called it Blitz.

Absolutely nothing wrong with my account. You on the other hand are a troll. Nothing more than a salty troll. I usually don't ever say this to people, but you will most likely never be good at this game and you should probably just move on. You are obviously just going to keep finding excuses and will remain stubborn forever.

If being so bad and losing makes you so upset that you are having a mental break down then you should find something else that you enjoy instead. Losing games on purpose because you feel you have no control over your games, even at a very low skill level. 

Instead of asking for advice, you join the forums to act like a victim.

Pathetic.

Nice mental break down. I hope you get banned for ruining the game for so many players looking for a fun game of Chess. How do you even get so frustrated while playing such a great game. You obviously don't enjoy it. 

The average rating here is around 800. That alone proves that the majority of players here are beginners. Player rated 800 still makes many blunders per game and still in many cases doesn't follow the basic principles. The difference between 800 rated player and those below is that those below make even more of those mistakes.

And as for speedruns and alts, it makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. I mean, theories are fine, but his games are the proof of what I am saying. His opponents are not some Karpovs and Kasparovs in disguise. They hang pieces, they, bring out the queen early, they push their pawns too much in the opening. In essence they are playing in accordance with their rating. So no need for some theories and whatnot, things are pretty simple.

I hope you get banned. You don't deserve to be here. You don't enjoy the game and you just want to ruin it for others and spread your frustration and anger everywhere. 

Disagreeing.

A month was four nights at a club that met weekly.  So figure a few serious games, some blitz and some spectating.  That could be done in one day on an internet site.

In the US the 1970s predated the scholastic chess boom, so a 15-year-old player was considered very young back then while today more than half the US membership is probably younger than that (due to a very steep rise in youth membership while adult membership has a smaller rise).

Both back then and today you can see very sudden rating jumps in kids' in-person ratings after they've had a handful of lessons from their coach.  Having been an arbiter for almost four decades I've lost track of the number of sudden rises I've seen in the ratings of players that regularly played tournament chess (having post-tournament ratings that change +200, -50, +100, -50, +150, -50, +100 and finally stabilizing at the higher rating is not unusual, nor is +200, +150, +100 and stabilizing).

Rating is not arbitrary if it is compared on the same site or in the same federation. So you can easily compare a player rated 400 and player rated 2 000 on chess.com. The second one is a lot stronger than the first one. You can't easily compare them between different sites, that is true.

But as I've said, here the average rating is around 800, and I've played a lot of people that rating in some unrated games, so I am aware of their level of play.

I get why you are saying that about speedruns, but what you should know is that people get their rating points back by chess.com afterwards, so speedruns don't really affect ratings. Alts do, but there are not enough of those to spoil the fun. And almost everyone rated 400 can progress just by playing slowly and learning the basic stuff. It is just that some people are not that interested in that, and are playing casually, which is of course fine.

Yeah, I am not a fan of speedruns either. But it does not influence the rating pools at all. But again, I'd rather it not be a thing. 

In any case, you should know another thing as well, we all have our good and bad days. For instance, yesterday I've drawn a game with a player rated just below 2 100 in a 30 minute per side game (actually a short time control for me as I am playing somewhat longer games generally). But in some rare games I've played really bad against 1 100 rated opponents in those unrated games.

I've played 1 900 rated player and was completely equal but he played better in the endgame, I made a mistake and lost. That same player blundered a piece in the opening the very next game and lost in a few moves.

For lower rated players it is even more pronounced. So it is not unusual to play ok for your standard one day and just be obliterated the next day. That is just the nature of the game. In my opinion, OP shouldn't try to find something suspicious in his games, as it is generally not there.There will be some exceptions , of course, but that will be a minority of games.

It shows that he care at least somewhat about chess improvement. If that is the case, he could get some information about that.

Regarding post #78,

OTB tournaments in the 1970s were not daily.  Going to four tournaments happened over a span of 4 to 8 months (don't remember exactly and the on-line records only go back to 1991).  However, the number of meetings at a one-night-per-week club and the number games to burn off the rust can be done much more quickly on-line and thus a rapid rise of a few hundred points in strength is not surprising today.  I'll grant that it is not common, but it is a certainty that some players are legitimately increasing their strength that way and thus automatically labelling all rises as suspicious is lumping together both innocent and guilty.

That type of lumping together also applies to the OP's comment that "beginners" are cheating.

Regarding post 82, if everybody had the same initial rating (call it 1200) then the ratings some distance from that starting point would have a more consistent level of play while 1200 might be totally inconsistent.  With five different initialization points their will be some inconsistency at all levels based on how people differently perceive the initialization descriptions.  Play will generally fix misperceptions relatively quickly (for my starting misperception it was 16 rated games to raise my daily rating by 700+ points and now I am getting close matchups, while it took longer for the Blitz rating because I was relatively clumsy at first getting used to an internet site's interface).

For the OP's misperception, 22 games have sufficed to drop about 700 points and the OP may have another 100-250 points to drop before reaching a point where the games are competitive.  Then we're likely to see the OP play better over time, maybe even getting back up to a four-digit rating and then continuing to get stronger.

There have been fair-play bans on Chess.com.  As an arbiter I have personally ejected players that I caught cheating in national championship tournaments.  I know that some cheating occurs.  What I also know from almost four decades of experience as an arbiter is that before chess computers more than 98% (probably more than 99%) of the cheating accusations were erroneous even when the accusers honestly thought they were true, and that percentage is still very high today.

As far as on-line play goes I've seen well over 80% (maybe over 90%) of the "this player is suspicious" threads be erroneous about their accusations.  Banning people that somebody else truly thinks is suspicion would harm a lot of innocents.  Simply use the site's tools to report them and let the site's cheat detection team (CDT) take any necessary action, but the CDT has to first determine whether or not the suspicions are correct and that may require a number of games to verify (only the most blatant cheaters can be caught in a single game).  Even if an opponent is banned that doesn't mean they were cheating while playing against you (I've beaten opponents that were banned and I couldn't have done that if they were using an engine while playing me).

So my advice to the OP would be to play the games, use the reporting tools if suspicious, and accept that any suspicions may be incorrect.

Other site has only 1 starting point - 1 500, so at that point you really don't know who you are playing with. And the other site has a question mark beside the rating for those who rarely play that time control, so you know that your opponent's rating is provisional. Jetoba has a good point about starting ratings here, I haven't even thought about it that much.

So as you are around 400, you could get some matches against some people that miss their initial ratings, and it might be the case why you sometimes feel overwhelmed.

For instance, when I started I was unsure should I say New to chess, or that second one. It turned out that even choosing that second one was a little low (but not by much).