1800s(USCF) Noob or strong?

Depends. There is quite a range within the 1800s for USCF in terms of skill.  Definitely not noob. Don't know about this dichotomy. As GM Finegold would say, seems very suspicious.

Duuude. It's not my problem you have a weird condition where you can't look at screens and 2d pieces. It's not about the appearance. You should try out blindfold chess dude. It is really hard. It really helps though. Then the format of the game doesn't matter that much. Ever try 5+ move combinations? Get off chess.com if you don't agree with chess.com. lol

This is the best strategy to lose against someone significantly higher-rated.

Your only hope, where you are outrated, is a deep dive into tactical complications. If you just try to trade into a simple endgame, the other guy will make sure you give him a bit of advantage at each trade. You can trust the guy's positional instinct to be better than yours.

Yes, they might make mistakes, but so do you with higher chances.

Lol how can playing solid kill me? Obviously I will take advantage when it comes around but that doesn't always happen right away. When I say mistakes that is what I mean: positional and small material mistakes. Don't make 'em.

If solid means never negatively affecting the evaluation of the position then it's certainly not a losing strategy, and the best strategy against any level of opponent.

yes i agree, nobody calculates every single scenario (except some top gms)so if u sac a piece and bring the game to a very complex position u have a chance of winning

if u play solid, well u wont play solid because he will play more solid, and plus u might get bored at the game and make a mistake

I was black and ran into a Kings Gambit against my 2300+ rated opponent. I once watched a Chessexplaineed-video explaining the counter attack f5!? for black and this time it worked out :)

How might playing solidly kill you? Because while you wait for them to make a small mistake (positional or small material), realize that as they're higher-rated, on average, they make better moves than you do, and fewer mistakes. It's when the pressure is on and one mistake means the game that you have a better chance (a highly tactical situation), because if you need them to make 5 small mistakes, by playing solidly you make it easier for them to not do that. On the other hand, even if they aren't pressuring you, you're more likely to make mistakes than they are. 

Yeah, they're more likely to find their way through a tactical mess than you are too, but you don't need them to make lots of uncharacteristic mistakes for you to win, you just need them to make one.

That's why it's typically thought that to beat a higher rated opponent, you are better off complicating the position, making it more likely that they'll make a mistake you can exploit.

Why on earth would I put myself in an inferior state, just to make things complicated and hope that they make a mistake? I don't understand this.

Because you'll win more often if you do.

I'm assuming during this conversation that you're outrated against an 1800, by a decent margin. 

I'm not saying you need to play bad moves; obviously play the best moves you can. It's that when it comes time to make a decision about taking the simple path or the complicated path, your better bet is to complicate things to increase the chances your opponent makes a mistake. 

Think of it this way (just for the sake of conversation and explanation)--let's imagine that for a given position, it takes a certain rating to play it right. You can have 2 rooks v king, and an 800 or above will play that correctly. You can have a Lucena position, and a 1300 and above will play that correctly. You can have a simple middlegame position, and a 1600 will play that correctly. You can have a complicated middlegame position, and a 2000 will play it correctly.

If you're rated 1500, and your opponent 1800, do you want a simple position, or a complicated one? You need your opponent to make mistakes, so you take the one that offers you both a chance to make mistakes, rather than the simple one where your opponent is far less likely to mess up. 

I've heard it said (chessbase.com maybe? don't have a link) that top GMs can win games, even games that should be drawn, against lower GMs by simply making lots of moves, continuing to play, because they will on average make better moves than their opponent.

Even in a pretty simple position, they can build up a small edge every so often by picking on some minute positional detail the other player didn't catch. Even though their opponent may be trying to play solidly, he can't play -as- solidly as his higher-rated opponent, because he doesn't know as many things to consider.

Am I making any sense?

Another thing to say--when I outrate my opponent, I'm always happy to simplify to an endgame. This is because at every step of the simplification process, I get to make a choice that benefits me a little bit. Maybe I choose the better pawn to trade, or the better piece to retain because I can see what kind of endgame we're going to get to, and I know which piece will be better in that endgame. Even if I don't get to build advantages when we simplify, I'm pretty confident I can maneuver for awhile and catch them in a mistake first, as long as the position isn't -so- simple that they aren't going to make a mistake either. I want one simple enough for me to grasp that's still a little above what they can comfortably play. 

I try not to just trade into an endgame against stronger opposition, because I tend to end up with the short end of the stick, for the same reason. They saw some way to do things just a little better than I did, and end up with an advantage. I need to give them more to consider, more challenges to figure out, and keep the pressure on them, instead of rely on outplaying them when things get simple.

0-1200 = Patzer

1200-1500=Noob

1500-1800=Strong noob

1800-2000=Noob master

Well actually my rating is still 1295. But I am highly under rated. Last tournament I beat 2 14s, a 16, drew a 16, and lost to a 15 and a 16. I see what you mean though. I thought at first that you were encouraging me to make bad moves lol!

That´s Botvinnik´s advice:

Botvinnik : "Prolong ! Prolong the struggle !" 

Yea, it's five years old but so far I haven't found anything more recent.  (If I had access to the data I could generate these graphs myself.)  However, I'm sure the overall shape of the curves won't change much, even with the most recent data available.

Cool stuff. :)

Why are you a noob?

You are 18...:P

Lol your rating is 1800 though so noob! lol