Strange how your three most recent losses were all against 2000s. THEN before that you lost to a 100 and 1600. Strange. Looks like we have a najgrunfeld wannabe here
whats strange about that? did you read any of the text i wrote in the first post? I clearly already stated i have way more losses then wins therefore if i made a lowlight thread it would be 10 pages long... understand? so quit hating on the highlight thread or contribute something useful dingbat
Nobody cares. They are bullet and blitz games, many of which are unrated and they are all on Chess.com. If you want to impress people, beat 2000+ players in rated OTB or online games where they are going to put 100% into the game. And play classical time controls. 60/5, 45/45, 90/30, etc. If you can beat a 2300 in a 45/45 rated game, then you have something to post. Trust me - You won't have anything to post.
1) i was not familiar with that app i will check it out and give a try
2) the beauty of chess.com is it archives its games to verify anything i post as not being made up. Even if i beat Fischers reincarnated what record would verify any game PGN i posted in playing on that app ??
3) in your post you explain and dismiss those games as not as a big deal. Ok sounds good but just out of curiousity so i just want to ask you if you can post your 2200 or IM/GM/CM/FM bullet/blitz wins and we can show nonmeaningful wins together. soooo links? just dont avoid responding or we know that you are only a stereotypical keyboard warrior
First game in fide online beat a 1779 in 20 KG moves in a 15 minute 
. Apparenty download pgn is an upgrade feature which i dont think i want to pay.. so how am i supposed to prove games. What i will do for now is take a screen shot hopefully
Not bad wins. Some of them were rated. It seems to me those games are legit win.
Most of those wins, you generated counterplay against their king and even strong players might miss something and let you hack.
You should probably build a tactical repertoire and focus on accurate calculations and you might be able to get out of the 1300 zone. Also, maybe work on your positional evaluation in closed positions, that could be your weakness compared to your attacking skills (which is your strength).
It's hard to get +200 rated to play with here(matching restriction)
It just provides more of what serious players are looking for.
Possibly, also I play only standard games with 15 +10 here so don’t know about blitz or unrated games condition as the OP mentioning. I guess at 2000, standard player's(who are probably >98% percentile) has to wait a tad long for matching so they have no problem to play with lower guy's.
Yes in v3 you can select the rating range. From -400 to +400,cool implementation but one have to select it manually. Still it would be somehow better if an user has freedom to chose whom to play. If titled player's sometime host free simul at 'first come first serve' basis that can also quench the thirst of amateur player's who sometime want to play better guys. That will do a little endorsement for their coaching service in return and help the site too.
I'd love to see some 2000+ level commentary (from you, I mean, proving you actually know how to play the game at that level) on your actual chess playing here. Until then, you're just another blitz bot.
Not bad wins. Some of them were rated. It seems to me those games are legit win.
Most of those wins, you generated counterplay against their king and even strong players might miss something and let you hack.
You should probably build a tactical repertoire and focus on accurate calculations and you might be able to get out of the 1300 zone. Also, maybe work on your positional evaluation in closed positions, that could be your weakness compared to your attacking skills (which is your strength).
Thank you!
I fail to see what is so great or meritorious about taking advantage of serious one-move blunders, made by much stronger players, in unrated games, at very fast time limits.
If you had outplayed some of these people at slow time limits then I would be impressed ... but if you were capable of that your rating would be up there at 2000+. Even then I would not be enormously impressed. In my many years of playing chess I have outplayed and beaten quite a few IMs. It does not mean much. Anyone with reasonable understanding of chess that plays enough tournaments will now and again end up in a position that they understand better than a significantly stronger opponent . Sometimes they'll even manage to cash in the full point through strong play rather than through their opponent's bad blunders.
But of course I also lose quite often to players that would never trouble an IM ... but that is something that we never hear much boasting about! So, overall, I am still a mid-1900's player OTB and have never been much better than 2100, even back in the prime of life, a few decades ago.
It might seem churlish andmean of me to say this. I am saying it because if you want to get better at chess then looking to gather undeserved praise from people that don't know that much about the game is not going to help you.
Strange how your three most recent losses were all against 2000s. THEN before that you lost to a 100 and 1600. Strange. Looks like we have a najgrunfeld wannabe here