Still too afraid to play against humans, i finally beat xQc bot(1200) without any mistakes!

Because if you aren't at least 1500 according to bot ratings, then that practically means that you have no positional strategy bank and/or very little tactics knowledge. You can't get better at these things playing against other people that also don't know these things, especially when the winner is decided on time. It's definitely more enjoyable and educational to play the bots. 

Nice. Don't be afraid. Humans are very different than bots. You should start playing with real people. There is nothing to be afraid about. Its just a game.

Not at all. Why would you need to focus on your time against humans? Just play with enough time. You seem to play a lot of speed Chess, including bullet, where you lose far more than you win against humans. So if you are having time issues, just play longer games. Playing against humans is a solid way to get into chess from the perspective of how players at your level actually play, getting used to the common ideas that need to be figured out to move up at that stage. 

Your first sentence does not make any sense. The second is simply false.

Hi good for you. Just FYI though, I was afraid to start

Sorry hit return. I was nervous to play people here for years and only started about a month or so ago. It's brilliant I wish I did it years ago. Once you lose a lot of games you realise it's not that bad

You forgot to add "In my opinion". Who is forced to focus on time? I don't - I focus on moves.

I think if you are able to beat xQc with no mistakes you’ll be fine to play against other people. Just try your best and you’ll see real people aren’t the hardest to beat. 

Hi! My name is Lauren Goodkind and I’m a respected  chess coach and chess YouTuber based in California: 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP5SPSG_sWSYPjqJYMNwL_Q

Congratulations!  Keep up the good work! 

Perhaps I should rephrase. The point is that even in an infinite length game against humans, your strategy will actually get worse as opposed to better.

Let me give you some perspective. I am a 400 elo rapid player. I lose a lot of rapid games because I make careless moves to try and bypass careless playing by my opponent. When I play unrated games at the 1000-2000 level, the games go much better. I've been told I play like a 1750, but yet I am a 400 against humans. Learning how to beat bad players is not necessarily bad, but it's not as educational as learning the real reputable positions.

no I just forgot to actually explain what I meant. Check above comment.

There is one flaw to playing bots, and that is that their moves become predictable. Playing one opponent (AI or not) will always leave you with a narrower approach to chess. If you have chess.com premium and are playing all the different bots you would be learning a lot, but playing one bot over and over again only helps against a very specific playstyle. If you are like me and can't afford premium, the best bot to practice on is Stockfish at various levels. That way you'll be getting used to the reasoning behind best moves and recognize inaccuracies more effectively. 

I mean, I know which one I'd assume was a more reliable measure, but maybe I'm a little cynical. 

If you are a 400 against humans, you play like a 400. 400 players don't like like 1750. 1750s aren't making careless moves to that degree. 

As for learning how to beat "bad players", bad is a relative term. These would be players at your own skill level we're talking about. Those are the issues you struggle with, the ideas you need to get past to advance. 

Actually in order to advance I would have to play games, which I don't. But when I do, I know what I'm doing, I'm just careless. This idea you have of people being defined by their rating is sociopathic.

After reading your comments I’m a little baffled. It looks like your understanding of how chess works and especially about how the rating system works is completely wrong. But before I jump to conclusions, can I ask you some questions?

“Playing against actual players doesn't help anything. It actually hinders your learning because you are forced to focus on your time.”

The consensus among players, including high rated players, is that playing chess helps improve your chess. Can you provide arguments why it ‘doesn’t help anything?’ I also don;t see why you are forced to focus on time. As others have already mentioned, you should adjust your time format. You could play 30 minutes per game or even longer. I’m currently playing Daily which gives me 24 hours per move. If that’s not enough I could even go for games that allow 3 days per move. You have to provide more arguments to convince anyone you need more time than that.

“I never lose a game in bullet”.

That;s not what your profile shows. What am I missing?

“In order for me to improve I have to actually study the positions of games, which you can't do in a real match against a human.”

There are many ways to improve. “actually studying positions of games” is one of the most important ones. Can you explain why you can’t do that in a game against a human provided you have enough time on the clock?

“Because if you aren't at least 1500 according to bot ratings, then that practically means that you have no positional strategy bank and/or very little tactics knowledge. You can't get better at these things playing against other people that also don't know these things,”

it’s actually easier against humans. Because against humans you can discover tactics. Computers have the ability to play without any mistakes, so won’t ever get a chance to play tactics against them when they go at full force. The tactics lower rated bots allow are random blunders that give you absolutely no insight in how to play better.

“Perhaps I should rephrase. The point is that even in an infinite length game against humans, your strategy will actually get worse as opposed to better.’

This is where it gets interesting. I don’t know what you mean with an infinite length game, why you would want to play that and why your strategy would get worse. Can you provide an argument or some logic to support this?

“Let me give you some perspective.”

I’ve tried to see your perspective, but it’s not easy to understand what you want to show.

“I am a 400 elo rapid player. I lose a lot of rapid games because I make careless moves to try and bypass careless playing by my opponent. “

You make it sound like you choose to make careless moves to try and bypass careless playing by my opponent. In general it is a much better strategy to play good moves. 

“When I play unrated games at the 1000-2000 level, the games go much better.”

What does this even mean? I assume you are referring to the levels bots play, because otherwise it makes no sense. Also, 1000 to 2000 is a really wide range. Really wide.

“ I've been told I play like a 1750, but yet I am a 400 against humans. “

To avoid confusion. There is only one rating:  it;s your rating against humans. That’s not a different perspective, that’s just the only rating that is relevant. Period.

What I find most interesting is who told you that you play like a 1750 when you are a 400 rated player. The way ELO works you can calculate how much of a gap that is. A 400 rated player playing a 1750 rated player would win somewhere between 1 in 500,000 and 1 in 1,000,000 games. Can you tell more about how you received this this assessment of your play ?

“Learning how to beat bad players is not necessarily bad, but it's not as educational as learning the real reputable positions.”

At your rating level, you shouldn’t waste your time on reputable positions. You won’t see many reputable positions until you beat other bad players. But please explain how you currently work on reputable positions.

“There is one flaw to playing bots, and that is that their moves become predictable. Playing one opponent (AI or not) will always leave you with a narrower approach to chess. If you have chess.com premium and are playing all the different bots you would be learning a lot, but playing one bot over and over again only helps against a very specific playstyle.”

I agree. yet I would go even further. Not only are you training a specific play style. You are adjusting your play based on an opponent that has no similarities to actual opponents.

“  If you are like me and can't afford premium, the best bot to practice on is Stockfish at various levels. That way you'll be getting used to the reasoning behind best moves and recognize inaccuracies more effectively.”

Why do you think that? Because Grand Masters use engines to prepare? Any good player will tell you not to play Stockfish. So where did you get this idea?

“Actually in order to advance I would have to play games, which I don't. But when I do, I know what I'm doing, I'm just careless. “

This sounds like a contradiction, care to explain?

“This idea you have of people being defined by their rating is sociopathic.”

Can you explain why you say this? It’s a strong accusation and I’m curious what your reasoning is.

noice

That's not very nice

Wow, I am beating Noam.......but its talking an age

You as a person is not being defined by your rating. Your skill level at chess within a relevant rating pool is described by your rating. This just is. 

I say describing rather than defining because chess isn't a discrete skill in and of itself. People can be better or worse at phases of the game. You could possibly play well enough in certain aspects to pass for a higher rated player. It is just that you do other things bad enough that the results don't reflect that rating.