Have you notice only chess.com has so many underrated players !?

Especially in a B class pool of players 1600-1800 ratings

Just my recent example , few minutes ago I've played a guy 1850 rating. I was so relaxed , because for me it's quite easy to win 18 hundred in real life OTB or online doesn't matter, so I was playing quite relaxed and I notice my first game he was playing really fast and most important quite persistent. So not a big deal I lost that game and I thought hm... I need to play a bit better concentrate a bit more I mean it's 18 hundred not so weak anyway. So my second game I was concentrating a bit more and same story , the guy was moving very fast with only few positional mistakes but very persise, I thought hmm. ...... feels like I'm playing an expert here something is wrong here.

So my 3rd game it was on ! I thought I can't just keep loosing and relaxing all the time the guy think I'm weak , so I give it my all 99% and no wonder guy lost, BUT I was surprised as it wasn't an easy win at all I had to work for it !

So long story short I knew this guy couldn't be 18 hundred strength if he played expert + moves, speed, percisnes, endgame knowledge etc ... so I decided to look in his profile what's going on there. As I expecting my intuition was right , the guy had few month ago rating of 2065 and his best win around 22 hundred.

That's just one example and,especially on this website I see underrated players everywhere. Some players 300-400 hundred rating point who should get 4 move checkmated all the time playing 12 hundred strength with 10 or more moves of theory etc...

Why do you think chess.com has so many underrated players and k'os all around, where's other websites more stable about it.

The only underrated players I found on this site are in bullet games, and the occasional newbie on their way up. Or a high rated player will play several games on a bad day, tanking his or her rating, and then play you later after having had plenty of sleep.

#3

Don't be stupid , it's provisional.

Just now again I've play another member 18 hundred something and he was playing really strong I asked him if he has official rating and he said 2100 !!! See what I mean !? I'm not actually playing someone who's 18 hundred I'm playing someone who's 21 hundred! !!!

 Ok, so just mentally add 300 points to your rating and everyone else's you see on here, and have fun playing.

I know for a fact the players rated 1000 who whooped me at bullet are not really rated 1000. They still are instructional and fun to play.

ESP-918,were you playing rapid? Some GMs have sub 2000 rating and although I am 1400, I can beat 1850 Computer11 easily.

Please explain

I like how you found the solution by game three op , to give everything you had to win , grades are a guide to a players strength and generally reflect it well ive found but it is a number when all is said and done , like you I find that not giving 100% will mean im lucky to draw , but like you when I give it 100% I get the result for my efforts ,a lot more ,,, I do like playing very strong players as it gives me the opportunity to raise my game and those lessons cost me nothing as long as I learn from them ,

I think chess players as a whole are getting stronger due to the internet, if you compared an 800 today to an 800 from 20 years ago, the 800 of today would be stronger.  Why?  Because we all play more games than we used to- before apps for phones and PC's you used to have to go to the library or meet up somewhere and hope there was a good opponent for you. Now all of us can play dozens of games a day 24/7.  On top of more practice there are also tutorial videos like John Bartholomew and Ben Finegold on YouTube.  My rating sucks, but I still know some opening theory- I just played a game against a 1600 and it was a full 30+ move game, not me getting checkmate in 12 because he is 500 elo higher.  Ratings are a relative, not an absolute scale so if all chess players are getting better as a whole, it is not reflected in our ratings.

Especially bullet chess

Glad I'm not the only one who has long noticed this. I started playing online chess way back in late 1990s and I can say with 100% certainty that the standard has gone UP by a lot. A 1600 player today would probably be around 1900 back then. That is how much things have changed.

Blame computers, and non-stop GM games that anyone can view any time. This may be demoralizing to total newbies who will get knocked out numerous times by supposedly weak players who are below 1200 rating, which was considered a novice rating "back then". That's why the "entry level" or provisional rating here starts at 1200 if I am not mistaken, but 1200 today is no longer the same like before.....

But don't forget there are players with playing styles and openings that are just uncomfortable for you, aka your nemesis. Rating does not tell the whole picture.

For example, Magnus Carlsen vs Daniel Naroditsky in 1/0 bullet. Or Magnus Carlsen vs Ian Nepomniachtchi in classical (one of the few guys with positive score against Carlsen). Just a high profile example

The rating of chess.com is very tough and can bring down even a good player. 

Losing a game brings you min. 10 points down, losing tournament game with a player far below in rating can cost 20 or more.

Add abandoning games because of real life situations, computer shut downs, hacking the clock, and server glitches which causes loses, and you can see why 2000 + something payer can go down to 1500 or even less.

If you have a bad day, but keep playing , you may lose 10 to 15 games in the row, and lose 150 o moe rating points in one day.

Bias in the ELO-system of online chess

I am about 2000 across the board on this site. I created a new account to start streaming. Never got anywhere with that so just decided to run it up as far as a i could. I could not get past the 1800 level players. Now im at the point with this account where if i get challenged by an 1800 level player i just abort. Im gonna lose.