How do I beat a 2000+?

Guys, a thought just occured to me. Is it a possibility that the medication that I am taking could potentially be having some sort of role in my inconsistency?

@chessdude46 

I think playing a mix of quads and higher sections will help you immensely, because you won't be facing any lower-rateds and if you don't quit you will become a great deal stronger faster than you think possible.

Thanks, Andre. Now I just need to find a way to get to higher rated tournaments.

Sounds like you're making stuff up and you don't have much of a critical eye for your wins (I can't imagine how adept you are at ignoring your losses).

What do you mean by a critical eye?

I mean looking for your mistakes.  Moves, calculation, thought process, evaluations... it's easy to fool ourselves "oh I saw that" or "yeah I thought that was a draw too" but the more honest you can be, the more you have a chance to improve.  "I felt like there should be a way to draw, but after analyzing I decided I was lost there so I avoided that line"

Or in your case it sounds like "I play at an 1800 level but I'm rated 1500"

Even your rating "1553" seems to be merely the rating of the highest player you beat in one of your recent tourneys (if that guy in the link named Cody Webb is really you).

Chess is hard.  Essentially we all suck.  If you want to get better, don't waste time lying to yourself.  That's all I'm trying to say.

 This quote should be plastered on the front page of chess.com. Because it is 100% the truth.

It's not that I have thought I was playing well and could have beaten these players. I have beaten these 1900 players. That rating I have on my page is from the Oregon Scholastic Chess Federation, one that more accurately portrays my rating because I have played many more games that were rated on that scale. (USCF tournaments are fairly rare in this area). 

http://chess.ratingsnw.com/ratings/ratingsWX.php

Scroll down to Webb Cody. You'll see my rating. It's 1531. I haven't updated my profile in a while.

I'm not lying. I'm taking the situations that I've already had and seeing if I can take any advice to take advantage of similar situations in the future.

Assuming nothing is fishy or trolly here, maybe post some of the games.  Very aggressive players tend to have games where they roll over a player +400 points then lose to a player -400 points.

If you don't want to post the games, at least what openings are you playing?  Did you win after they made a big blunder?  Did you simply know more theory in a very sharp line?  How do you lose when you lose (regardless of how strong your opponent is).  Are you losing to tactics?  Closed middlegames?  Queen endgames?  Are you low on time?  Tired when the day started?  etc.

I really need to do that more often.

No you weren't being a jerk. I see nothing wrong with the way you asked the question but nonetheless people still seem to think it warrants douchebaggery. You handled it pretty well, I for one wouldn't necessarily have handled it so well if I were in the same position.

It's as if people here truly believe in these hypothetical points as religion; the more points you have - the more you are able to demand utter respect.

See I don't agree that this place has to be void of serious discussion. We aren't in the early 2000s anymore when the internet was only filled with trolls and flamers. I expect to be in an environment where chess is nurtured but sadly chess.com apparantly babysits a certain kind of sour attitude.

The helpful and redeeming comments do appear eventually but sadly most 1st time posters would stray far away from their thread when the first 2 or 3 replies have been douchebags. 

by being younger that him and then seceretly pausing the clock.

Kasparov, a student of the Botvinnik school of chess stated that the best way to improve is to be brutally honest with yourself. Find the area that you are weakest in, and work on that. Every week, review your strengths and weaknesses, and focus on your weakness.

Be precise. It's not good enough to say, for instance, that you are weak in endgames. Which endgames give you the most trouble?

You keep talking about your record against players rated 1900-1999. Your USCF record shows that you have yet to gain even a draw against anyone over 1700. Prove yourself, to yourself, in USCF games. The only ratings that matter are USCF (national) and FIDE ratings.

Go out and play some USCF tournaments! If you work on your game, the wins will come. Even wins against players with ratings starting with a 2.

Technical synopsis of what it takes to beat a 2000+ USCF rated OTB tournament player:

1. 6 opening repertoire (3 as White, 3 as Black) that you know all variations 35-40 moves deep including transpositions to other variations in the same opening and transpositions to other openings.

2. A strong 5 visualization pattern memory bank:

  a. Tactics visualization pattern memory bank

  b. Mating Net visualization pattern memory bank

  c. Endgame technique visualization pattern memory bank

  d. Opening visualization pattern memory bank

  e. Middlegame visualization pattern memory bank

The time required to acquire and be competent with all of the above is 2-3 years

If you would like to know more please let me know.

I think he joked. In my first 2000-"scalp", I was out of book in move 4 (4. a4 in the benko gambit, and I knew nothing theoretically. Though I knew a little about the positions after bxc4, because the structure looks like the b6-variations, except with the black pawn on a7 instead of a6, and since a typical plan for white is a4-a5 and pressure on b6, black is a little more comfortable.

The only thing you need to do is to constantly play fine moves, and 2000-players outplay themself. That usually happens when I play an IM. They do nothing extraordinary, but somehow I lose a piece around move 40. Very annoying, because it's difficult to find out where I went wrong.

Currently my Northwest rating tends to be closer to my actual rating because I've played 130 games on it compared to 20 or 30 in USCF. USCF rated tournaments are rare here, unless I want to drive 2 hours up to Portland to play in quads. The people I've beaten were rated 1900+ in USCF. I am honest with myself. I am one of the most self-scrutinizing people I have ever met. I am trying to improve. I just wanted to see if people could help me understand this problem that I tend to have. That's all.

Chessdude, the Northwest rating is just a scholastic rating. 2000 there does not equate to 2000 USCF. You are aware of that, aren't you?

Added:

I just noticed, you're not even a scholastic player anymore. It's time to join the big kids' pool and play in USCF events. There are plenty of events in your area.

I am aware. But the people I have beaten also had ratings of 1900 in USCF. I am just saying that given that it has twice as many games recorded on it that it should be more accurate to my playing strength. It's accurate towards a lot of players I have gone against as well since, as I have said before, USCF games are fairly uncommon here and the northwest rating has more games on it. 

Where are you seeing these USCF events near me? The closest ones that happen around here are two hours away.