Dont get me wrong us 400's suck but were not so bad that we blunder everything.
Looking at a few of your games, you play a lot better than the op. No idea why you're both 400. Maybe I looked at your best games and his worst games, IDK.
@zolidmill take a look at some old games with GhostNoodles. You'll see something different.
AND, today I am very sick. I have strep throat so I was not playing my best game.
Lets take a look at this. I just played this versus someone who has a rating that was 39 ELO points more than I. I played a solid opening, held my own in the middlegame, and played a great endgame. I do understand that my opponent had quite a few blunders, but the rating difference should mean something.
Lets take a look at this. I just played this versus someone who has a rating that was 39 ELO points more than I. I played a solid opening, held my own in the middlegame, and played a great endgame. I do understand that my opponent had quite a few blunders, but the rating difference should mean something.
Solid opening? You hung a piece on move 4, although your opponent didn't see it either. I couldn't watch more than about 10 moves, the game was too painful to watch. Sorry, but it looks to me like your rating is about right.
Lets take a look at this. I just played this versus someone who has a rating that was 39 ELO points more than I. I played a solid opening, held my own in the middlegame, and played a great endgame. I do understand that my opponent had quite a few blunders, but the rating difference should mean something.
if the chat box said "win +8 / draw +0 / lose -8" then the elo difference means nothing
^ Move 4 you hung a knight
For lower rated folk I'd say the basic guidelines could be:
try to castle in your first 10 moves
try not to move the same piece twice, in the first 10 moves
don't forget your opponent is also playing, and trying to win.
When playing white- try to use the same opening moves, until you truly have a handle on not just 'what to do' but rather understand 'why to do"-
^ Move 4 you hung a knight
For lower rated folk I'd say the basic guidelines could be:
try to castle in your first 10 moves
try not to move the same piece twice, in the first 10 moves
don't forget your opponent is also playing, and trying to win.
When playing white- try to use the same opening moves, until you truly have a handle on not just 'what to do' but rather understand 'why to do"-
What exactly do you define as "lower rated"? Anything under 800? Or perhaps 400? Or maybe even 1000?
This is in no way meant to sound harsh but if you’re 400 - pretty much everything you could possibly be doing wrong, you are doing.
But the biggest factor is certainly: hanging pieces, missing basic threats/mates, failing to take free pieces and basically everything you can think of to do with board vision.
If you can improve board awareness / safety / threats / vision - even just a little bit, you’ll definitely see gains in your rating.
Completely agree. 400s are missing all kinds of things all the time. Some players exhibit dunning kruger and do not appreciate the large skill gaps between different groups of players.
I have had friends rated ~200, 350, 600, 800 play together and I can see significant differences in their play. If the OP is interested in improvement, they should link games and have people provide feedback.
Is this suppost to be some prank? I was playing games consistently with accuracies of 60-70 % when I was 200. Nowadays My usual accuracy is 75 to 80. I do not agree with this at all
Accuracies are not the same across all elo ratings. Most of your games are against 500s. It's very easy to have high scores against them. Your usual accuracy of 75 would drop be more like 20 if you regularly played stronger players. So @BoredErica is completely right. Be humble and listen to stronger players than you. Thinking that you know more than a titled player when you're 600 is insane
When in existence was I saying I know more than a titled player? Also I am pretty sure that stockfish evaluations dont change when the rating changes. I am really getting confused on what is going on over here on this forum.
BoredErica replied to JamesColeman saying he agrees with what he said. Then you replied and said "I do not agree with this at all". That is you disagreeing with a titled player. You're 600 be humble and listen to players better than you.
Accuracy depends on what moves you're doing based on the position on the board. When you play a 500 their moves suck. Responding accurately to them is easy because they don't complicate a position the same way a 2400 does. That is why it is easy to get 70% accuracy against a 600. If you played a 2400 your accuracy would drop to 30
So what if he's a titled player? Saying you are doing everything wrong does not constitute a very good analysis. He's been very silent ever since I showed him some examples of games with really low average centipawn loss, which clearly contradicts his arguments.
Btw, centipawn loss is accrued by comparing your move to the engine's best move. Not by comparing it to your opponent's move. You could argue some positions are more positional and others are more tactical, therefore, it will be easier to match the best engine move more often, but that will not happen for every single move in a match since engines go on tangents and lines even SuperGMs can't find.
When a player in 3 digits or even in the lower 1000 elo ladder plays 25, 30 move matches with 30, 20 average centipawn loss, regardless of whether the match is highly positional or highly tactical, is a clear sign they are not "doing everything wrong".
That's also a sign the elo ladder on this site is completely broken.
In my experience I have only played against people who are that accurate at Daily chess and they are players close to 1900-2000 elo. In a time control where they can even go consult databases, etc. So it's incredibly upsetting to see players at 900 elo on this site playing with such accuracy.
And engines don't analyse a position differently based on the rating of the players. Mate in 1 is mate 1 for Carlsen and for a chess.com 400 elo player. Losing 100 centipawns in 1 move is evaluated exactly the same, whether you do it or Nakamura does it.
And please note Im using "centipawns", not the chess.com "CAPS SCORE" or accuracy, or whatever they call it. In chess the accuracy of a move against an engine is measured in centipawns.
There it is, a sub 1000 thinking he knows more about chess than a master. Dunning-Kruger in full effect
You just can't counter my arguments because you know they are true. Prove me wrong. Tell me centipawns to measure accuracy is a myth and that everyone uses chess.com CAPS. Prove the engine analysis a position differently based on elo of the players. Prove accuracy is not measured against the engine's best move rather than the other player's move.
You can't. So you immediately try to disregard it via elo. Hilarious. You also keep referring to that titled player when Im addressing YOU. Are you calling for help? Do you think "the master" is going to come back to the thread to defend you? "Help me, Master, I can't counter this 900 elo's arguments, help pls".
Embarrassing.
Also im 900 in 10+0 Rapid chess and faster time controls because I can't think beyond 2 moves in such a quick time control and i blunder like a moron. Im much much much better in slower time controls. You, on the other hand, are only 2000 when playing fast. When you have to slow down and think about your play, your brain just can't go very deep and gets stuck, so that's why you are 1300 in Daily.
bro really thinks hes a grandmaster lmao
lol you just tilted after losing like 2k rapid games and started playing daily so you can say you're a 1400 after analyzing a position for 3 hours more than your opponent because you have nothing better to do 
^ Move 4 you hung a knight
For lower rated folk I'd say the basic guidelines could be:
try to castle in your first 10 moves
try not to move the same piece twice, in the first 10 moves
don't forget your opponent is also playing, and trying to win.
When playing white- try to use the same opening moves, until you truly have a handle on not just 'what to do' but rather understand 'why to do"-
What exactly do you define as "lower rated"? Anything under 800? Or perhaps 400? Or maybe even 1000?
We know who we are, no need carve a number into stone. 
Hi,
I feel like I keep up well with my chess counterparts in the mid 1000's for most of the game. I usually lose the endgame but can hold my own for quite a while. As for people in my rating range, I am winning most of the time. However, my rating is only 400. What should I study to boost my elo quickly?
Hello! I've looked at some of your most recent games, and I have a bit of advice for you, if you're open to it. I'm afraid that you're making the most basic tactical mistakes long before the endgame. I'm talking the opening and middlegame, too. You often make unsafe captures which ends up losing material. That tells me that you're not aware of the most basic tactic called "counting" (as coined by Dan Heisman). You basically need to start your tactical learning at the very beginning, by starting with learning the "counting tactic".
Here's a couple of links for you. The first link is just the introductory article on counting. The really important one is the second link, which is named "A Counting Primer". Read that article and make sure you do the counting exercises in that article. I think it will help you immensely.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627023735/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman15.pdf
400 is insane bro keep it up
Hi,
I feel like I keep up well with my chess counterparts in the mid 1000's for most of the game. I usually lose the endgame but can hold my own for quite a while. As for people in my rating range, I am winning most of the time. However, my rating is only 400. What should I study to boost my elo quickly?
You're definitely not anywhere near 1000. You have so much to learn before you are even 900.
I think I started around 900 when I first played chess. I mess around a lot now, but Ive been well into 1300-1400 which is so much stronger than 400 I can't even begin to tell you.
This is in no way meant to sound harsh but if you’re 400 - pretty much everything you could possibly be doing wrong, you are doing.
But the biggest factor is certainly: hanging pieces, missing basic threats/mates, failing to take free pieces and basically everything you can think of to do with board vision.
If you can improve board awareness / safety / threats / vision - even just a little bit, you’ll definitely see gains in your rating.
Completely agree. 400s are missing all kinds of things all the time. Some players exhibit dunning kruger and do not appreciate the large skill gaps between different groups of players.
I have had friends rated ~200, 350, 600, 800 play together and I can see significant differences in their play. If the OP is interested in improvement, they should link games and have people provide feedback.
Is this suppost to be some prank? I was playing games consistently with accuracies of 60-70 % when I was 200. Nowadays My usual accuracy is 75 to 80. I do not agree with this at all
Accuracies are not the same across all elo ratings. Most of your games are against 500s. It's very easy to have high scores against them. Your usual accuracy of 75 would drop be more like 20 if you regularly played stronger players. So @BoredErica is completely right. Be humble and listen to stronger players than you. Thinking that you know more than a titled player when you're 600 is insane
When in existence was I saying I know more than a titled player? Also I am pretty sure that stockfish evaluations dont change when the rating changes. I am really getting confused on what is going on over here on this forum.
BoredErica replied to JamesColeman saying he agrees with what he said. Then you replied and said "I do not agree with this at all". That is you disagreeing with a titled player. You're 600 be humble and listen to players better than you.
Accuracy depends on what moves you're doing based on the position on the board. When you play a 500 their moves suck. Responding accurately to them is easy because they don't complicate a position the same way a 2400 does. That is why it is easy to get 70% accuracy against a 600. If you played a 2400 your accuracy would drop to 30
So what if he's a titled player? Saying you are doing everything wrong does not constitute a very good analysis. He's been very silent ever since I showed him some examples of games with really low average centipawn loss, which clearly contradicts his arguments.
Btw, centipawn loss is accrued by comparing your move to the engine's best move. Not by comparing it to your opponent's move. You could argue some positions are more positional and others are more tactical, therefore, it will be easier to match the best engine move more often, but that will not happen for every single move in a match since engines go on tangents and lines even SuperGMs can't find.
When a player in 3 digits or even in the lower 1000 elo ladder plays 25, 30 move matches with 30, 20 average centipawn loss, regardless of whether the match is highly positional or highly tactical, is a clear sign they are not "doing everything wrong".
That's also a sign the elo ladder on this site is completely broken.
In my experience I have only played against people who are that accurate at Daily chess and they are players close to 1900-2000 elo. In a time control where they can even go consult databases, etc. So it's incredibly upsetting to see players at 900 elo on this site playing with such accuracy.
And engines don't analyse a position differently based on the rating of the players. Mate in 1 is mate 1 for Carlsen and for a chess.com 400 elo player. Losing 100 centipawns in 1 move is evaluated exactly the same, whether you do it or Nakamura does it.
And please note Im using "centipawns", not the chess.com "CAPS SCORE" or accuracy, or whatever they call it. In chess the accuracy of a move against an engine is measured in centipawns.
There it is, a sub 1000 thinking he knows more about chess than a master. Dunning-Kruger in full effect
You just can't counter my arguments because you know they are true. Prove me wrong. Tell me centipawns to measure accuracy is a myth and that everyone uses chess.com CAPS. Prove the engine analysis a position differently based on elo of the players. Prove accuracy is not measured against the engine's best move rather than the other player's move.
You can't. So you immediately try to disregard it via elo. Hilarious. You also keep referring to that titled player when Im addressing YOU. Are you calling for help? Do you think "the master" is going to come back to the thread to defend you? "Help me, Master, I can't counter this 900 elo's arguments, help pls".
Embarrassing.
Also im 900 in 10+0 Rapid chess and faster time controls because I can't think beyond 2 moves in such a quick time control and i blunder like a moron. Im much much much better in slower time controls. You, on the other hand, are only 2000 when playing fast. When you have to slow down and think about your play, your brain just can't go very deep and gets stuck, so that's why you are 1300 in Daily.
bro really thinks hes a grandmaster lmao
lol you just tilted after losing like 2k rapid games and started playing daily so you can say you're a 1400 after analyzing a position for 3 hours more than your opponent because you have nothing better to do
You dont need to be a Grandmaster to analyse games with Stockfish. The fact that you are 1700 here and you believe that you have to be a Grandmaster to learn what centipawns are or how accuracy is measured, makes it even more hilarious. It's the most basic thing. You dont need to a titled streamer to learn how to analyse your games.
Also your maths are off. When I was playing 80 Daily games at once many years ago, had I taken "3 hours" to analyse each position before moving, how many days would you think it would take me to move in all 80? Impossible task.
You have no clue.
You think there can't be a difference of 800 points in different time controls? Let's look at your profile, shall we? 1700 in Rapid. What's your bullet rating? 761 ... Ah yeah, 900 elo point difference. So shut up.
This is in no way meant to sound harsh but if you’re 400 - pretty much everything you could possibly be doing wrong, you are doing.
But the biggest factor is certainly: hanging pieces, missing basic threats/mates, failing to take free pieces and basically everything you can think of to do with board vision.
If you can improve board awareness / safety / threats / vision - even just a little bit, you’ll definitely see gains in your rating.
Completely agree. 400s are missing all kinds of things all the time. Some players exhibit dunning kruger and do not appreciate the large skill gaps between different groups of players.
I have had friends rated ~200, 350, 600, 800 play together and I can see significant differences in their play. If the OP is interested in improvement, they should link games and have people provide feedback.
Is this suppost to be some prank? I was playing games consistently with accuracies of 60-70 % when I was 200. Nowadays My usual accuracy is 75 to 80. I do not agree with this at all
Accuracies are not the same across all elo ratings. Most of your games are against 500s. It's very easy to have high scores against them. Your usual accuracy of 75 would drop be more like 20 if you regularly played stronger players. So @BoredErica is completely right. Be humble and listen to stronger players than you. Thinking that you know more than a titled player when you're 600 is insane
Also why are you looking at my account like you want to steal my money?
Also stockfish will say the same best moves no matter how much you climb the rating ladder unless you change the stockfish or change the depth.?
^ Move 4 you hung a knight
For lower rated folk I'd say the basic guidelines could be:
try to castle in your first 10 moves
try not to move the same piece twice, in the first 10 moves
don't forget your opponent is also playing, and trying to win.
When playing white- try to use the same opening moves, until you truly have a handle on not just 'what to do' but rather understand 'why to do"-
Even worse, hung it again on move 5... blundering two pieces in the first 5 moves.
Again, at 400 players don't actually know how the pieces move in the sense that they can only tell where a piece can move if they look directly at a single piece and concentrate.
For example:
Of course both players know how pawns move, but they didn't look at the pawn on g6, so neither of them noticed the queen could be captured.
Another example
This time white looked at the queen, but didn't capture the black queen. Why? Because white wasn't sure whether the queen was defended or not... you can't tell if something is defended when you can only see 1 piece at a time. To figure out whether the black queen was defended white would have had to look at all 9 of black's pieces one at a time and that would have been a lot of work.
By the way these are from "old games" against ghost noodles that the OP told me to look at... yes they're better than hanging a queen 5 times in 1 game, but still, the NM's comment about not having any board vision is correct.
You think there can't be a difference of 800 points in different time controls? Let's look at your profile, shall we? 1700 in Rapid. What's your bullet rating? 761 ... Ah yeah, 900 elo point difference. So shut up.
Look at any of his blitz losses... he loses them on purpose.
Keep in mind this is a 1700 rapid player who has averaged almost 10 rapid games a day for the last 3 months.
Honestly when JamesColeman went on his rant about 400's blundering everything he was completely wrong. These days most four hundreds aren't half bad players.
First game I looked at OP, he hung the queen 5 times in 1 game.
3 times by moving it onto a square that was attacked.
1 time by leaving it on a square where it was attacked.
1 time by missing a 1 move tactic.
When the game ended, OP still had the queen. In other words the 400 rated opponent also missed it 5 times.
Players at the 400 level don't really know how the pieces moves. They can only see where a piece can move if they look directly at that one piece and think for a while.
https://www.chess.com/game/live/73342431541