Why is everyone low rated so ridiculously good?

mistakes. distractions. turn a higher level player into a lower rated one. it's too ez to start a quick game online when you don't have the time or focus. as soon as wife starts jabbering, or comes home, etc.......I'm going to lose. sometimes you can have the right clear frame of mind to play, and win a dozen straight. Other times without it.....you do the opposite.

Blitz and Rapid ratings aren't related like that. One could be higher than the other, or the other way around, even by 1000s of points. It just depends where the site wants to set the average, and what kinds of players are playing in that time control population.

For real on a 1000 on here is the equivalent of a 1300-1400 on lichess it's kind of ridiculous

I was champion of my school over 30 years ago.

I just started playing again regularly but I am better now than I was in high school.

Still not very good, but in random games throughout my life against other people who wanted to play, I won most of the time.

My rating is below 900 right now and I am getting my but kicked on the regular.

I feel your pain.

I was thinking the same

some people did not have their full potential, so they lost a lot. I was about 1400 last year, but i found a good strategy, that got me to 2000

My first game of rapid here and I got immediately sand bagged..

by any chance was the strategy called; "switching to bullet"

possible they have computer assist?

no seriously i am 300 and i go to game review and the it says the accuracy for the players i play against is at 950 elo

I agree the low level players are tough.

I am not really upset, but it was pretty extraordinary watching a 1560 player destroy me. LOL

I definitely got to do better. I had my chances to win and messed it up.

We live and learn for sure.

Very interesting nevertheless!

I’m only rated 900 or so right now but I see the same thing. High 80% accuracy on some game reviews and both players play 12-1300 or better rated games. It must be my terrible games that offset it. Haha! 

I have beat 1800 level bots and regularly beat 15-1600. I can also make dumb mistakes and play very low. I’m sure there are other players like this as well as more consistent and steady players.

I agree. I was expecting to meet opponents that are new to chess, since I am. But in real life they fall for the scholar's mate. Not these guys.

I don't agree with this thread's claim. Lower rated players are significantly easier to beat compared to someone my level.

Bots are easier than players that match their elo, so don't compare to them.

While a 1700 can play better than a 2200 at time the key factor is consistently. I bet if I played you 1000 times at least one game I would destroy you horribly. However you would be able to beat me much more constantly because overall you are a better player. That is why 1700s are not 2200s despite occasional perfect games, their rating is determined by consistency, not one-tricks.

That's not always the case. At 1500 I'm not dumb and know how to play in most positions. Now I will miss more tactics than you may but in most positions I will play solidly.

Smurfing, engine use, and people with multiple accounts.

Stockfish evaluation at this level basically just tells you how many blunders you made. Get lucky and make no blunders in one game, and suddenly you play at a much higher rating.

That, or they just started at 400 and haven't reached a correct rating yet.

When it comes to bullet games (I am looking those because in bullet you are between 2 100 and 2 200 rated most of the time), against 1500-1599 rated people, you have played 14 games with 12 wins, 1 draw and a loss, which is almost 90% of points. That is not 20% loss rate. You lost the last game against such rating and that is why you exaggerated the loss rate. Plus 14 games is not enough to draw statistical conclusion.