Chess.com Ratings are a JOKE

imo i don't think highly of myself but i always try given the opportunity to play and do have the ability to win a solid tournament but again i have stated i view myself as a 1800 many times

Irrelevant now that your "sarcasm" was shown to be ignorance

His OTB blitz IS 1791 now.  That was published on July 1.  His rating prior to that was 1503 (he did have a good event at the end of May).  His rating back in November 2021 (when he had to create the new account) had a massive gap in his OTB and online ratings.

Look at his first game.  His initial rating was 400, which he won and got 180 rating points for.  I swear it is almost as if you like being smacked in the face with facts that are easily proven.

And he could win 20000 games against 800-rated opponents and not lose a single game - guess what, he won't hit 2200 that way!  When you lose to low rated opponents (especially when you are still in the provisional period), your progress slows down.  Once your RD drops down to normal (as I've explained several times already - and this is the same on LiChess by the way), you only get 5-10 points for a win against someone within +/- 100 points of your rating.  So it would take about 10 wins per hundred points (without a single loss) at that point.  That usually happens about about 20-25 games.  Since he started at 400, he quickly moved up to ~1400 (around 25 games) and his RD would have started to get close to the normal range, so he would have to win more games to go up 100 points.  Took him about 8-10 games to go from 1400-1500.  Roughly 17 games to go from 1500-1600 (due to a couple losses).  ~21 games to go from 1600-1700 (again, due to a few losses in there).  ~31 games to go from 1700-1800 (also, more losses).  etc.  This is normal.  If he had not lost any games before ~1800, he probably would have hit it in under 75 games - starting from 400!  The rating system takes your rating and your opponents rating and has an expected outcome.  If the outcome does not match, ratings are adjusted accordingly.  It doesn't know "oh, this guy's rating is only 400, but he's really strong so we are going to bump him up an extra 400 points for every win".

I swear you seem like you are just mad that at some point he was in your rating range and you feel he should not have been.  The only way for him to get out of it is to go through it.

Save face?  I freaking pointed you to the stats and you still cannot figure out how to read them.  Enjoy thinking you have "won" in your complaint about the rating system.  I'm sure it will get you far in your chess studies.

I'm guessing you got dragged into this discussion - the point was that it took you "so long" to get to your "real rating" when you had to start a new account.  To me, it did not seem like 2 weeks and less than 200 games for a kid with a 1200 OTB rating (at the time) to get to 1800+ online was all that long.  It is actually faster and slightly higher than I would expect from your OTB ratings at the time.

Magnus's rating is 2864.  That means he could play like a 2864 when he was 12-years-old, right?  Or does your strength at the time matter?

You really need to work on your reading and comprehension skills.

Yep, that's it.  You caught me.  I lied and then pointed you directly to the place that showed I was lying.  Oh, wait ...

so its a shock? well i mean yeah ig but again i just didnt have much opportunities for OTB

I think we've got a pretty detailed picture of why he's still at the rating that he's at. "I must have lost because my opponent did X!" (board shows opponent did Y) "My opponent definitely did X! I will prepare against X!" (loses to Y) "My opponent is still doing X! But I'm not going to prepare for it, I just know it!" (continues to lose to Y. Repeatedly. Then posts in the forums about how losing to X shows lichess is better than Chess.com)

What was that saying about your rating saying what it says about you?

Oh this was not aimed at you, I meant the other guy. Looking at learningthemoves stats

Nah, doesn't matter. His games had very simple tactical mistakes. There's something else going on.

Bruh, PawnTsunami was talking about there Classical rating in USCF so .... Blitz USCF ain't matter learn chess then come and fight, at least learn the OTB things

Yeah...my other account I am 200 points higher rated and I can still win games...
The bots...I can beat 1600 bots as a 1400 Rapid Player. The bots ratings are very inaccurate. Hikaru Bot was defeated by Nepo Bot (Which I will talk about in my YouTube video on my channel) despite Chess.com putting it as "20 points higher" and they should get a draw instead? 2 years ago, Chess.com increased everyone's bullet rating by 150 points to make it same as their blitz rating, but they forgot about how people can be bad at bullet and stuff, why not just decrease everything until it is about the same as FIDE Rating? Hikaru is 3000 in Blitz at Chess.com which means there is an inflation of about +300 points
Bullet might not matter, but Chess.com should make Blitz and Rapid rating closer to FIDE's one.

We've already established he is bad at math, reading, comprehension, chess, and now we know he is incapable of reading a tournament history and rating history chart.  It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

You obviously are not reading your own posts then.

Your explanation for your subjective experience only makes since if your 1200 ("little timmies") pool of players /never plays anyone in the higher rating pool/.   Otherwise, as a cohort the lower ratings would all increase together, and the higher ratings would all decrease.  

It also only makes sense if every player who is improving /has exactly the same rate of improvement/.   Otherwise, players in the lower rated pool would improve at different rates, therefore have a distribution of expected match outcomes over all pairings, as usual, and their ratings would adjust according to that in the usual way.

Both of these or clearly not true.

rating is just to show how much better you are than the general wpoplw if you stuck at 1200 and everyone else is too then you are 1200

the chess.com players are doodoo (NOT YOU GUYS, the ones that dont speak and premove goofy, dubious openings/variations trying to make you slip) they dont know how to play chess

• they forget chess is meant to enjoy
• the italian/london is what they breathe
• they will find the most goofy ways possible to decline a gambit
• strangely they love Ng5/b5 moves that attack the bishop for 1 move

and these dudes play as goofy as possible, like ive had this in nearly all my delayed alapin games

4.Bd3 is actually a sideline. I know it looks odd, but it's been played by many strong Grandmasters.

Although White playing d3 afterward looks a bit odd. d4 is the more common move there.

Also, in the line you showed, Black playing ...d5 encouraged White to play e5 and d4 ... which justified the placement of their bishop. Notice how now the bishop on c2 is on an excellent diagonal.

White is saying, "Thanks, buddy!"

As Black, something like this would've been preferrable, instead:

Don't improve your opponent's position - make it more uncomfortable for them.

what happens after though? i just push b5?

Well, Black has different options. But I wouldn't play ...b5 as it blocks the bishop's pin on the d3 pawn that Black just created.

Something like this comes to mind:

Playing with the tension on the d3 pawn, and then also finding another point of activity: the f4 square.

Knight to e5 is a maneuver I avoided when I was lower-rated, as I didn't like "doubling my pawns". But doubled pawns in these kinds of structures can often be useful - they can help restrain your opponent's pawns from advancing, and can open useful files for your rooks.