Chess.com is rigged.

I mean its true that Chess.com has done scuzzy stuff for money. It's not that big a leap from "let's advertise chess NFTs to children" to "let's use the same highly successful algorithmic strategy as Facebook and Youtube to boost engagement on our site."
To be clear, I don't think Chess.com is actually doing that. Chess generates its own engagement. But if you treat a website that should be a transparent, open community as a profit-making enterprise (note that nobody has these conspiracy theories about Lichess) you're going to get these conspiracy theories constantly. 

And this is as true in the rest of society as it is on chess dot com.

Yeah, I get the same impression. That it's kids who play a lot of video games and think that leveling up is automatic.

This OP mentions overwatch...

Human vs human games are different. If you suck, then you'll stay bad for as long as you suck. That can be 1 month or 100 years. If you want to improve you have to change the way you play.

I must not understand. You think different players with different levels, openings and play styles make .com a fraud? 

Yes. They have to play the same way every time.

If he beat one 1300 with a trick, then that same trick should work against every 1300 every time.

the chess magician from rigged

The burden of proof is usually on those who claim something controversial to be true. You can't just say a unicorn exists and tell people to find proof that it doesn't. This is why even in science we always use the most straightforward explanation first unless it is disproved - in this case the OP is simply bad in chess.

One thing that is so great about chess is that it is a pure information game. There is no luck factor or rigging the game in one person's favor. If you analyze your games you will see that your opponents are playing far from perfectly. Chess.com has a pretty good cheating detection system, and if someone is literally playing perfectly every game they will be exposed eventually.

I don't know.....sometimes I feel like "That guy played a perfect game and crushed me. He's rated 100 points lower than me....what's going on? Is he cheating?"

Then I review the game and see that his accuracy was maybe 70% and he made 4 mistakes and 2 blunders....but still didn't play quite as badly as I did. 

I think the people who created and manage this site understand that their success depends on giving chess players an honest experience, so that's what I believe they do. 

These are very simple and very big blunders which cost the game.

The game was easy for Black simply because white played all the wrong moves.

Damn too much words for me

This isn't fifa bro.. The better chess player will win

What I don't understand in the OP's conspiracy theory is basically everything. What is the connection between chess.com "rigging" the matchmaking and chess.com getting more money?

Game review will often change your mind about a game/player. I've been crushed, and the review showed I simply played bad. Works the other way too.

If you think the player cheated you can always report them, which is as far as you need to go. 

There's no reason to check if players are cheating. the obvious ones -- at least -- will be caught by the system. In fact, if you look in my games, you will find someone was very recently banned. Their page will be a prime example of an obvious cheater. all wins, all accuracy ratings of 96 or higher... They'd obviously never heard of anti-cheating protocol. 

The less obvious ones won't be visible to you, so there's no point in checking. 

In any case, there's not much of a gain to concerning yourself with it. It's not costing you money, just play chess, analyze your games and enjoy yourself. 

People defending the platform is just ridiculous. In a fair matchmaking situation streaks would be far less often. Usually you do climb until you reach a point where you've reached your skill level. Then it would be 50/50. Some streaks occur naturally, I won't deny that. But here it's quite obviously. I've started to counter odd and new openings by playing weird counters as well. You'll just get a feeling for it. You'll win against a few people that constantly blunder and make easy mistakes and all of a sudden people outplay you within a rating of 50? That' just pure nonsense. 

So why would a platform like chess.com push you to buy their sub? 

It's quite simple. 

There's data about your openings and how you perform against others. Statistically you'll have a better winrate on some openings. So whenever you have a winning streak and "think" you got better, the algorithm pairs you with (for yourself) new and harder openings. So the chances are higher, that you'll lose to these. It pushes you to get the feeling of "damn I need to study more to get better, maybe I should buy the sub and analyze all of my games".  Hence you're more likely to be a subscriber in the future which means a higher income for this site.

It's narrow minded to think that a platform like this doesn't use those algorithms.

Other games do as well collect data to stretch players activity or have odd matchmaking algorithms to get player to buy their stuff, why not chess.com?

Everyone who played games like FIFA before should know that's not a conspiracy theory.

I'm not saying I should be always winning, because yet I make dumb mistakes and am probably where I do belong, but it's just my experience and I know some of the tricks of the gaming industry.

It's all about attention and activity. The more activity, the more success you'll have with your site. 

Funny thing is, whenever I get those easier games, I can blunder like crazy and still win the game. 

And the most important question at last;

Why doesn't it occure on lichess?

it's called going on tilt

i do it here, i do it on lichess

You're right, it's plausible that chess dot com could do this. And it doesn't help that this website is opaque and profit-seeking. If their matchmaking algorithm was open-source, we could dispel this here and now. You don't have to point to games like FIFA; this strategy is highly successful on Facebook and YouTube.

But just because something is plausible doesn't mean it's happening; you may be a victim of a clustering illusion. The burden of proof still remains with you to provide some evidence or means of discovering the evidence. So can you point to a juncture or junctures in your archive of games where you think this happened?

It's also important to remember that openings and Elo aren't deterministic. There's always a margin of error (your Glicko RD is +/- 27). I'm not sure there's a way to simultaneously A) select matches which generate tilt/set you up for tilt B) do this over several matches and C) maintain the perception of randomness. The tilt-generating strategy you describe would likely get more people to quit chess (and stop consuming ads on chess dot com) than subscribe.