Low ELO players are surprisingly competent on CC

I have a Lichess account where I’ve been around 1200 for quite a while and decided to try CC.

Long story short - I am getting regularly destroyed in the 600-700 bracket.

These players are no chumps — most opponents at this level play proper openings and also early moves that counter your opening format.

Most also make few to no blunders and play with respectable accuracy. Many go late game with no blunders and high accuracy and understand how to convert winning positions — mobilising the king, converting pawns, stacking rooks, etc.

I make my mistakes and blunders, and also understand that there are a lot of reasons I could be experiencing such a hard time… I’m just surprised that players at such a low bracket are so competent.

. Occasionally I do get a game with someone who feels more representative of this ELO and is a bit clueless, but it’s the exception rather than the rule.

Here is a specific game Ive just played…

- 650 rated opponent
- Played with accuracy across 57 moves
- Made a blunder, then played end game flawlessly
- Look through his wins… mostly around 90% or 80% accuracy

Hard to believe that a player at the very bottom of the pile in chess is this good. I have many more examples.

Check out this #chess game: DFRAN54760 vs AbsolutelyHanging - https://www.chess.com/game/live/147533994260

* accuracy of over 57 moves

Lichess vs Chess.com ratings are not equivalent.

Lichess 1200 ≈ Chess.com 800–900.

Its because the site is loaded with soft engine use, and there's nothing they can do about it sadly. I have to play at 85% accuracy and every move can't be more then 5 seconds. I have to do all that to stay at 1000 elo blitz....

I think beginners also don’t consider that there are many different reasons someone can be 500-1000 rated. Some do puzzles but have never had a lesson or studied positional chess so they don’t hang that many pieces (though likely still 1-2 most games) but the don’t develop properly or have any care about positions elements. The next player may have bought a chessable course and play the first 10-15moves very well but then start hanging stuff later on.

I have a junior I coached for 10 lessons (rated 500) who plays very promisingly until his opponent thinks for over a minute, then he’s so bored he insta replies and frequently blunders as a result. This impulse control issue is typical of young players and difficult to correct early in their chess career at 7 years old. But his checkmate pattern skills are sublime so you’d be shocked at the combos he pulls off sometimes to win a game.

There are lots of reasons why people have low ratings, and a lot of them have nothing much to do with chess, they're more about personality. I am no great shakes at chess, but at my best I play with reasonable accuracy. I go through long losing streaks where I can't be bothered, or I get self-destructive, and I'm rubbish at assessing positions, so I often resign when I shouldn't. I totally get @CoachRhys junior; if someone takes too long, and I start to get bored, I often resign because I'd rather get on with a new game than sit looking at the same position.

I notice that in my last winning streak when I was bothering to analyse games afterwards, I maintained >80% accuracy for 5 games in a row, which isn't too shabby for a 500 player. But I've also got a 23% draw rate (which is fairly impressive at my level) and some truly embarrassing losses. I don't much like winning, nor do I much like losing, so I'll always accept a draw!

Lichess ratings are inflated and chess.com ratings are more accurate

It’s been getting worse for years. CC now has the best 400 rated players on the planet. 🤠

people in the 600-1400 range rarely play at very different levels on here (so my elo isn't that bad guys right??)

+1

Can sm1 help me

Because I am 264 rating