Easier to beat 1100 than 600?

There has been a strange phenomenon lately where it seems I have more success against players who are 1000 - 1100 than those in the 600 - 700 neighborhood. I don't think I was playing any better or worse in these games, the lower rated players simply seemed to be stronger and I can't explain it. I know luck is always a factor in lower elo contests, but this seems to have been happening a lot lately. Now I am wishing I could get back over 1000 so I can be paired with some easier opponents, I am not kidding. Any ideas?

I think that you are mistaken.

But at least if you want to make a claim asserting something like that, you should post examples of games were you were crushed by 600's and games where you beat some 1100's..

You are rated around 900 in rapid. You would be expected to beat most 600 to 700's and lose to most 1000 to 1100's.

I looked briefly through your archive and saw one recent loss to a player rated 630 and one recent victory against an 1100. However, those games came amidst many others where the wins and losses followed the expected path.

When I play In tournament, on average this person play very strong, very suspicious

Lower-rated players often make unpredictable and unorthodox moves. This unpredictability can make it harder to anticipate their actions, leading to unexpected blunders or traps.

Yup beginners are more random then non beginners

Ex an expert might overthink things and follow a system while a beginner does not so a beginner could occasionally get lucky just because they were playing randomly (not adviced to do this )

Yes we are better and stuck at 800/900 elo. But some of us truly are around 1700 elo in strength.

No your still 800 .... Just because a 1200 overthinks more than you and might blunder does not mean they are worse than you

Lol "random". True, when a 800 elo plays 20, 30, 40 moves with barely 2 or 3 inaccuracies and no mistakes nor blunders, yes, it's because he randomly moved the pieces and he happened to avoid making any mistakes "just by chance".

These players are not 800 elo and there's nothing you can say to convince me. I've been at 1700/1800 strength in DAILY chess for years, a time control in which many of my opponents in that range are already using databases to play me, and these 800 elos are as strong or even stronger than them.

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/111200431239?tab=review

700 elo IMMEDIATELY spots a chance to rip my kingside apart and open it up, all while maintaining an eval bar at around 0.0 for like 20 moves - barely 1 inaccuracy and 1 mistake on each side. Like, I dont even want to play these kind of games. I resign straightaway. Amazingly underrated players. 700 elo should barely know how to move the pieces.

Go pick any opponent in the 1500s range via the "custom" tab rather than clicking on "play", and they are infinitely easier.

1800 Daily is like 1000 elo? Lol that must be the stupidest thing I've ever heard in months. At 1800 daily there already are plenty of FIDE rated players around that same strength. Just to give you an idea the highest rated player on the side at Daily is 2600 and there are 3 titled players in the 4 top places, including 2 GMs.

Keep telling me then how Daily strength is equivalent of 800 points lower elo in rapid. So the GM at 2500 Daily is in reality around 1700 rapid? A GM? OK dude, whatever you say, lol.

Look another 800 elo match where there's not a single inaccuracy in the first 26 moves:

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/107585580970?tab=review

Must have been very random moves and get all of them correctly. Maybe we should play a lottery.

Criminally underrated players because, true, the pool is larger. Which makes OP complaint legitimate.

Sure so 6 inaccuracies is not a mistake also that game was pretty to play since the plans of the position are easy to understand they still played around 800 elo

I said up to move 26. Of course it blundered the exchange with the pin later. But 26 moves with no inaccuracies. Only minor centipawn losses which did not make it into inaccuracies and went into the "good" move category.

Extremely underrated player.

Nah not in my opinion the way they collapsed at the end was around 800-1200 elo level maybe a tiny bit underrated but not by much

I know I played badly in that game, I never said I didn't. It just seems that lower rated players punish me more quickly when I make a mistake.

I have looked over my history some more and I probably just hit an erratic streak, overall the higher elo players play better on average, with the occasional blunder of course.