why are lower rated players harder to beat?

More like, I don't mind blitz, but I'm tired of the disrespect and annoying play that I get when playing recreational blitz at this level. However, playing seriously against stronger players at blitz can be really fun and instructive. It is also true, that I don't want to play serious blitz here, as the average blitz player in this site is annoying to me.

It wasn't towards you, but complaining about cheap crap in blitz is like ordering Indian food and complaining that it is spicy. It just doesn't seem to be your scene. 

Apparently, some beginners don't even know the correct moves to play. I had an opponent today where I only had my king left, and he was using his queen and rook to put me in check. But then, he missed an obvious checkmate, instead doing this: (go to the last move)

Yup. Missed a checkmate causing a draw by stalemate. Even I wouldn't do that.

The ratings on here are not accurate. I have a puzzle rating of 2550 (WAY overrated) and a rapid of 1550 (WAY underrated).  Just a week ago I started playing 2 day games where I had an 800 rating. Ive gained almost 500 points so far...  You may be playing someone who doesn't usually play rated games, likes to try crazy openings that keep their rating low, etc.  

We all do that sooner or later. Especially under time pressure. 

I see this somewhat regularly at the 1100 level. A lot of people just never really learn to mechanically close out a won position and are in trouble when their opponents don't resign. 

Time pressure? He had 5:04 left when he made that last move. I don't think time pressure was the cause here.

I'm not trying to be mean, but those were the actual ratings at the end of the game. Also, his rapid rating is 302 now, so I doubt he sticks to unrated games.

I wasn't talking about his being under time pressure. Just that more people than you think will do exactly this sort of blunder, and a lot of those times there is time pressure. I see it with tons of time on the clock as well, just not as often. 

also has a psychological effect - if ur playing an opponent who has a very different rating, game desicions tend to be affected

The OP is tilting and is psychologically trying to find an excuse

my advice is take a break for a day, then come back

I play quite some poker. In the poker community there are a lot of jokes about people complaining how it is impossible to beat bad players because bad payers call everything and you cannot bluff them, and saying that they should move to higher stakes where people play better and "would respect their raises."

Of course, this notion that better players are somehow easier to beat is pure non-sense. Did not think that similar complaints could be found here

I don't think it's easier or harder to beat (as in the kind of words used by OP) some kind of players at beginner/early intermediate level, but much more frustrating and rather useless long term. Usually that's one of the reasons why many in the true elite of chess don't do their best at Olympiads and Open tournaments.

look, the title of this post was obviously not meant to be taken literally, although I am impressed how much discussion was generated. 

Also similar to poker. You don't learn anything by beating bad players. 

Which is only true if you have mastered the basic tools needed to beat bad players. The one thing about chess is that elo is what it is. In poker it is a lot easier to engage in self-deception about one's ability by not being precise about gains and losses and whining about luck. 

You do realize ELO rating points are basically a statistical measure that's extremely dependent on the mean rating of the player's pool, right? The higher rated players you play, the higher your chances of increasing your ELO, even if you just draw one game out of 100.

Which is offset by the unlikeliness of that result.  

If I play someone hundreds and hundreds of points higher or lower than me the system gets a little warped because it deals in integers. The worse player is essentially freerolling because they never lose rating points and can only gain. People who play reasonably suitable matchups don't have this issue. 

There are other inefficiencies in these ratings, such as I could sandbag in a way by playing 3 minute blitz when that is way too fast for me so that when I play 5 minute I am way underrated. 

Still, it is what it is. Harsh light of truth is harsh. 

ik ben nu een hafgevorderder

Maybe I do. My advice stands on its own. If you play people below your strength for a long long period of time when you yourself aren't that strong, you are likely to develop habits related to focusing just on how to: a) take advantage of your opponent's unsound moves b) defend against irrational attacks, c) avoid opening traps and similar tricks. These habits aren't bad per se, but part of what becoming stronger implies is... to develop other habits that transcend that narrow focus.

Yes, and yes.

Please explain the use of the word 'cheese' in the context used in these comments.