Rating vs playing strength

The ratings are statistical. Your single experience against a given player is just anecdotic, so statistically meaningless. Also, players with just a few games played won't have accurate ratings yet.

Many thanks for your opinion. The players are not new, where rating of course changes dramatically. It is not a single experience, basically oppenent's accuracy differs greatly. It is not my feeling, it is result of game analysis.

So, where is your statistics?

Sometimes they play better, sometimes they play worse. There is nothing unexpected about that.

Btw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

depends. for me, if I'm in a good mood, I'll just go all-out, with an accuracy of 80-60 (lmao). If I'm just not feeling it, my accuracy goes up to 90 (or unless I can't get somehting going). If im tired I just drop to 40 or less.

Also one of my opponents played with a 3.0 accuracy as a 1770... but the guy dropped 40 points so 

When I play online I sometimes play carelessly, especially in blitz and bullet.

My rapid rating is way above my blitz and bullet rating, because I have the time to think. 

Also, accuracy is the computer's opinion on your moves.

If you play humans, it's often about bluffing, especially in blitz.

its the opposite for me... I'm too impatient. My rapid is lower, because I like it less (i can win, I just play fast). On the other hand, 10min blitz is perfect for me because It's fast paced enough, and gives me time to think when I want to 

Yeah, thank you guys. Actually playing too many games and then get too tired (or get too tired by something else) will have a great impact indeed. I used to play chess in a club and playing the oppenents there with similar elo, they had quite similar playing strength and I knew what to expect. Playing the oppenents here, they have similar rating, but very different playing strength. I currently got to 1650 and last wins were actually much easier than the ones when I was around 1400, interresting ;)

I think it's because around 1400, some very strong players are held back because they play a variety of openings, and some like the St. George's defense. They have a good understanding of the game so they feel tough.

Actually, You ve understood the elo system backward. When You See someone with a rating of say 1290, their rating is actually 0921, which sucks. You might also think people with 2000+ elo are beasts, but actually a guy with 2100 elo would have a an actual rating of 0021! I know, I was flabbergasted When I learned about this too. Next time You meet a guy rating something like 1299, You better run cuz he probably will wipe your behind.

Maybe your opponent that is lower rated than his skills normally plays on a different time control and they have just started to play on your time conrol.

It is natural that accuracy varies from game to game. For instance I could play a position that is familiar and by a lot of exchanges I get to the endgame without major mistakes. In that kind of games accuracy can be pretty high. If you play some complicated game with an opening that is a mystery to you, you might score lower.

Similar to that, you can make 1 or 2 really bad blunders and apart form that have an ok game, get to the losing endgame, do not resign, and play with your king only excellent and best moves (because king doesn't have that many options). So even though you made 2 catastrophic blunders, you might still get a high score. That is statistics for you.  Sometimes it can be beneficial to see the per move difference between your moves and the best moves, but there will always be something that statistics will have a hard time explaining.