People just cant answer the reason why it is predictable that someone people with higher peak rating are harder to beat than people with lower peak rating but similar live rating.
A six year old child could answer it.
Live ratings are NOT handed down by God. They fluctuate up and down, as people have good and bad days... often enough, they change by more than a hundred points.
Let's imagine two players... Red and Blue. Red is a better player on average, but rather erratic. His rating swings up and down a lot but is usually higher than Blue's rating.
Blue is a worse player on average, but is more steady and his rating varies less day-to-day.
You play them both at the point marked with the Black line.
Who is more likely to beat you? Obviously, THE BETTER PLAYER is more likely to beat you, whether or not his rating is currently recovering from a bad patch.
Honestly, you conspiracy theorists will prefer to believe any bizarre theory rather than admit "my rating sucks because I'm doing it wrong", or "I lose games because I don't pay attention".
People just cant answer the reason why it is predictable that someone people with higher peak rating are harder to beat than people with lower peak rating but similar live rating. They instead say, "people should improve,its hard work,dedication etc". Complete BS. If everyone can improve , then you wouldnt have the distribution that you have. This applies to many things in life. nakamura is not losing to magnus because he isnt working harder enough. No, everyone hits their own plateau . What matters is, are they getting what they worked hard for. That is it, if you can beat people with peak rating over 2000, but because of algorithm, you keep having to play them repeatedly, you are never going to get to your peak rating because you are facing that level of competition at a lower live rating , that is not fair.