Super demotivated by losses, how to help

maybe 50% of those 30 million accounts are inactive and 25% can't play on two accounts simultaneously

This game lasted less than 14 minutes and i have proof for that because i wrote a message to another member a minute before the game started and that happened 14 minutes before the game  , but the server counted 17 minutes and i lost on time with one plus rook... https://www.chess.com/live?#g=5101361271

Is that how you learned chess? People can't memorize 3.5 million combinations  per second...

#WinningForever #Persistence #KeepGoingOnwards #SuccessfulnessIsOur! Hey People, Please Attempt Staying Motivated For Victories!  XD +>👋  CU All/Everyone Around ASAP AMAP! 

#DSTARLEGENDS Sorry Ok/Alright If This Is Advertising I Can Change My Actions Bye For Now  XD +>👋 

hi

I Love Your Status Mate! Friends? CU Around ASAP AMAP! XD +> 👋  Sorry Alright/Ok For Any Spamming

,😀

Thanks!

Keep playing.  You will get stronger.  Get that mindset.  If you are losing don't let it get to you to much and have a stronger mindset to fight for a win or a draw.  In other words go down fighting.  Also if you don't analyze your games figure out why you keep losing. 

@firstsecon, i've recently switched from one streaming site to another, so if you want to come and do puzzles with a few people, we talk through everything. I won't post the link here as i'm not trying to be all "advertisy" (is that a word?) just send me a message and i'll hook you up. I sort of gave up at blitz for a bit as i was stuck at around 1200, but have gained 200-300 rating points in the last couple of months by following a pyschological principle and a couple of handy tips. Work's wonders 

I'm in a similar way.  I don't mind the loss though if it's a close game but I really get down on myself when I blunder a piece ect.

I've changed about 7 accounts in between 800...2000 since then, but i close every account i don't use .

I also offered one of the 800 points accounts  to a 1700+ player to check my theory at lower levels and he confirmed :

Players as low as 1000 are actually at least 1400+ ELO. Many of the players in the 800 leagues are unbelievably good and that is actually because many of them are higher rated players that have multiple accounts.

Why higher rated players have multiple accounts?   It's very simple: if you are 1700 and play against a much lower rated player you loose a lot of points.if you win you get nothing instead. Now there are lots of players that cheat by using engines too so if you are in the 1700...2000 leagues you are very likely to play a guy with a tremendous amount of points won by using an engine so you have so many chances to lose that actually almost no GM have the courage to play online and loose points against an engine on their original account.

Instead even GM's are more prone to use fake accounts in the lower level  and actually you have a very high chance to play similar value players using no engine  in the lower leagues than up in the higher ones where cheating is justified. I realized that even GM do it after seing a video on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g1xMZhGOuc

And by the way...i watched this entire series and believe me: 50% of players in the 900 league play better than the players in the 1500 league in this video dated 5 years ago .I don't think it is because world population became instantly better at chess... My biggest surprise was to play against a 2000+ player(5 years long on this site)  to which i lost in about 50 moves and that was no better than some 1000... 1100 players  that usually make me resign   in under 30 moves(well...i mean that i resign in under 30 moves if i have a too weak hand).That was really strange ! Truth is that i played completly atipical so that the 2000 player won't  get easily that i'm actually a very poor player so making him thinking a lot of what the hell am i playing there  ? I was thinking the same actually https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7NifPzeKI

@colagenu

I'll be honest i'm not really following what you mean but if i have a stab at paraphrasing what i think i've read:

Observation: "rating means nothing because high rated players have multiple accounts so could be showing as low rated. Also rating means nothing because 50% of low rated players are actually stronger than the high rated players." 

Hypothesis: "if i give my account to a 1700+ player to check, he he will play people and confirm this to be the case"

Experiment: "Give account and let 1700+ player play low rated players and assign each his own arbitrary value and then check against actual valuation"

Conclusion: "Hypothesis confirmed"

I think thats the gyst of it.

Just going to point out the huge paradoxical flaw in this, but if rating means nothing, then how do you know that the 1700+ is 1700+? Maybe hes 170 and actually has no idea. By the very nature of the experiment, the rating he has needs to be trusted in order for it to hold value in your experiment, in which case it invalidates the results of experiments because the rating has to be trusted in order to even run it. If it is not to be trusted, well then, it's not to be trusted, therefore invalidating the results, because how do you know he's positioned to be able to evaluate anyones strength accurately?

Ooo its a tricky one for sure. But just know i'm here to help. I'm sure we can think of an experiment that's a little more... well-rounded.

Well..i can't tell the secret...but believe me...the 1700+ rated player is a true 1700+ player .Actually he found me not the reverse!

It's not a secret. It's a public declaration of the results of your experiment. In a public forum. Publicly,

I'm beginning to think this experiment wasn't run under the strictest of controls. 

Also your posts point to evidence. They state evidence very clearly. Now with no evidence at all you're just saying "believe me". That's not very scientific. I'm beginning to think you're not even a real scientist.

well...i am not a real scientist , i'm a fake one

Colagenu. If that is even your real name. Your experiment had great promise but was ultimately flawed. "Believe me" even in the face of a massive contradiction is the antithesis of everything a good scientist stands for, and now you say you're not even a scientist. Why publish your work so publicly for peer review if its all just a hoax? I'm not sure the scientific community will ever be able to trust you again. Your next experiment may be replied to with the hashtag colagenuwhocriedwolf.

As for me, I may never get over this betrayal. 

Farewell Peter Colagenu, it was nice chatting to you.