How come some 500s rating players are tougher than 7-800s rating players

I am new to chess , I have noticed that sometimes there are some odd players who have 500+ ratings but they are better with their moves than many 700+ or 800+ rating players that I have come across in last two months. My rating is hanging between 600 and 700.

I have a feeling that it depends on your luck, you may end up with 500+ rating from 700+ rating if you lose many games against an opponent who keeps defeating you and you keep challenging him.

Maybe the 800's sometimes make mistakes. I am 1100 USCF rated and I have had this experience many times.

Of course, there will 'some' 500 players who may play better than 'some' 700 players. Anyhow, that usually not the case.

the easiest way is to ignore the opposition grade just focus on the board

play well if needed study (online chess option)

no one is guaranteed a win in chess they must earn it i reckon you will earn many points if you perservere

It is generally said: Play the board, not the rating.

imkan ive looked at your recent games on your profile but i see mainly when youve lost the other player had a sim if higher grade was this due to winning points of your grade?

those points will come back and then some

I often loose a lot of rating, i work at night so sometimes play while im really sleepy and tired. I guess Im worth 1025 or so but often take dips down to 800.

part of winning in chess is understanding how you lose

raspberry you are well on the way now you've pinpointed the main reason

I agree with Raspberry that people often loose large number of points when they keep playing eventhough they are under fatigue or in kind of partially sleepy mood, so it could be that some of the tougher players with 500+ ratings that I encountered fell to low rating due to the aforementioned reasons.

Indeed, rating is fluctuating. Sometime i don't feel good, i lose but keep playing and losing many games. Also sometimes i feel ok but losing and i don't know why. Looks like i'm facing bunch of really strong players in such days. But when i reach bottom i crush people there very quickly and probably they have the same question. Also there is such thing as sandbagging. I'm not sure why people do it maybe they want to win a tournament against lower rated players.

At those low ratings, there tends to be large shifts in rating change even due to a few games. I'd say ratings are not as reflective of playing strength until above 1400.

Maybe it's masters under anonymous handles using their feet to move the mouse.

Lets not forget all the sandbaggers that intentionally lose a bunch of games to bring their rating down so they can beat up on lower rated players. I dont get why they do it but theres a ton of them on this site. I'd say the majority of the players rated under 800 Ive seen are actually sandbaggers.

I didnt look at your games but figured I'd mention it because your bound to come across them eventually.

Long_Hair you have definitely got it right, I am for example very comfortable at the moment with my rating hanging around 650 because I feel that I don't deserve a rating higher than that after just few months of getting into chess. And I started as a guy who did not even know how to move any piece so I have learnt it from scratch and I want to consolidate in 500-800 rating territory before moving up the scale. May be that is also the case with many other players hanging in 500-800 points rating club.

I have always wondered why do English speaking people say 'How come..." instead of the single three letter word 'Why'.

It's to stop the peeps sounding really gross when they yell it like crazy.

To really learn play opponents rated 100-200 points higher than you. You will lose most if not all of the time at first but it will make you better. Its about double your elo but maybe start with Computer Easy and keep going at it until you build up to its rating level.

I actually just give up a lot of the time if a do a bad move.  And so my rating stays around 900 even though it should be 1100 or so.

I don't care what people think about that, I just play for fun.  I study as much as a feel like and in the style that I feel like.

Similarly in response to Long_Hair's comment about always playing someone slightly better, I would say the opposite.  I think in all sports it is better to play someone slightly worse because it lets you try out new things without being too constricted and under pressure, and it can help psychologically to be winning more than losing.

It might be true that the *quickest* route to a higher score is playing someone better, but the quickest is not always the best.

because it looks like your cryin when you say "why"

lots of time outs!