How do I get better at this stupid game? I'm stuck in a low range and I can't get past it.

I'm so pissed off and frustrated I can't break past 1150. And I've just lost 50 points on tilt I'm very frustrated. The difficulty at 1150 is too high. Unless people play the main lines of what I'm playing they know too many tricks and I am getting beat every single time. Past 5 games I've been hanging my queen pretty much out of immense anger because what's the point? I climb up to 1150 and nothing I do, puzzles, tactics, not hanging, seems to make a difference. How are 1150's playing games through to the end games and converting their positions so effectively?

I have been watching a lot of videos on youtube of streamers climbing ratings and I've NEVER EVER seen a 1100 player in their videos play like a lot of my oppoenents. Never. Those guys must be  using another chess.com app because they play 1800's and their opponent hangs a knight or queen on move 5. I'm playing 1100's that make 0 mistakes, maybe 1 miss and don't hang any pieces whatsoever. Should I just make a new account and start higher? This isn't right, there are so many sandbaggers here it's disgusting. I am convinced these guys are much much higher than 1100. 

I'm really considering just deleting my account. What's the point of chess if I'll become like everyone else on here playing like 10,000 games being stuck in the exact same range? And every single 'study' tip is BS. How do you even study for chess? You can reduce your blunders and learn something like endgame concepts and then practise puzzles and tactics, but I do all of that and so does everyone else, lots of people not getting better at all. So clearly studying for chess isn't really possible unless you are gifted.

So sick of this stupid loop. I just want to get past the 1200 range. 

You’re on a 7 game win streak in rapid?

Your account is not even a month old.

I think what you need is first of all go to psychologist. And after you calm down start solving puzzles.

Yeah but it doesn't matter because I'll just lose again tomorrow I'm at 1150 nearly exactly I can't break 1200.

Take a short break of a few days and then come back, like 3-4

Or play longer time control, like 15+10 or 30 minutes, even 1hr is good

Why yes, chess is a very hard game.

The Elo rating system works like this: if you have 100 points over another player, on average you will win half the games and draw the other half. Of course in reality you will lose some games, but on the other hand also win more than just half, and of course thats just on average.

Climbing 100 points is thus not an easy feat, especially not the higher you get. Magnus Carlsen would be absolutely thrilled could he pack another 100 points of rating tomorrow.

According to others your account is like a month old and you seem play like crazy, so I would assume your current rating is about your real rating. You have to get the real rating up in order to climb further.

And yes that cant be done quickly.

I should have clarified. I've been playing chess for two years. My bad. Definitely didn't start a month ago.
This is the first time I've not just deleted my account after a few losses though. And the majority of these two years I've been playing the anonymous pool at Lichess, that's it. Maybe some puzzles on chesstempo too :/

I mean even playing mindlessly everyday for two years without really studying should make me at least 1200. 1200 is very average. It's the starting rating for FIDE. Like people who eat their boogers are 1200 OTB, so what is wrong with me?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I have beaten 1400's on chess.com before while creating new accounts and selecting advanced. So maybe I'm getting dumber or maybe I need a weathered old Chinese man to beckon me from a sketchy alleyway and teach me the old style of the chess art.

TELL ME HOW TO GET TO 1500 SO I CAN GET LAID. ALL THE GIRLS AT THE BAR LAUGH AT MY RATING AND ONLY GO FOR THE 1400'S.

I looked at the last 3 games you lost, I promise you they definitely were making mistakes and were not cheating. If you genuinely thought they were playing like they were +600 rating points higher, you need to reevaluate your conception of what good chess looks like.
Some points from your last 3 defeats:
against nana_qwame

- Why play Nxd4, the pawn is obviously protected? This is just a blunder, check your moves before making them. Also why play a 10 minute game if you are making your moves in less than a second?

- You also just blunder your queen and resign

- This person didn't play anything great, you just gifted them a win.
against tk27offseason

- They played e3 which is just a bad move against the French because it blocks their bishop, this alone tells me they are not cheating.

- Why did you play f6? Never play f6! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHIFMi-JhGI

- You castle without checking if all your pieces are protected, and you lose an unprotected pawn. Castle only when everything is protected.

- When you thought your bishop was trapped, you should have just sacrificed the bishop by taking his two pawns and open up their king. The fact the king loses all of its pawns in front of it, is plenty of compensation, you had winning chances if you did this. You should also read up on "poisoned pawns", there are a lot of positions where a pawn looks free but is actually bad to take, either because it opens up lines for your opponent or because it blunders a piece.

- You just blunder a queen, which is why you lost. Your opponent didn't play anything spectacular. 
against throwawayqueen

- Why bring out queen early? I know it threatens checkmate, but unless your opponent is very new or not paying attention they will not fall for it. Avoid openings that bring the queen out as the queen becomes a liability and target for opponent. The queen becomes much more powerful when there are fewer pieces on the board, so developing it later is safer and better for you.

-Why go for a pawn break when you haven't even developed all your pieces? Both your knights are undeveloped. Usually you should develop your knights before your bishop, because it is hard to know what the optimal square for the bishops will be in the game, but there are only a few good spaces for the knights. Also the pawn break was a bad idea because you just walk into a queen/bishop fork and lose a pawn.

- After the fork you didn't even try to save your bishop, why? you could have moved your queen to be in line with bishop so that if the knight takes the bishop you can retake with the queen.

- If you are down material, DO NOT trade major pieces. Why offer a queen trade? You need as many major pieces as possible to set up a tactic to win back material.

- Your opponent played ok, but you lost because of your mistakes.

In summary you are making a lot of mistakes early in the game that are obvious to your opponent. Don't make obvious mistakes, think about your moves, don't make moves in less than a second in the beginning of the game. Stop thinking your opponents are cheating when you are making obvious mistakes. I only think an opponent is cheating, if I didn't make any obvious mistakes but they still somehow end up with a commanding position, they have an absurdly high accuracy 20+ moves into the game, they play some very un-human like move that is not obvious for the position but is the top move, or are able to find all the top moves in a complicated end game. Even then they probably are not cheating but just having a really good game.

what kind of screwed up bar do you hang out at not getting laid because your at 1100's and others get laid because they are 1500 's --- what kind of pickup bar talks about chess while drinking -- coffee shop yes, maybe library yes maybe -- pickup bar --- no way--

This is going to sound like I'm making excuses, but the knight blunder was a misclick I meant to trade my pawn instead as the mainline variation goes. The other two games I was so tilted I was having trouble breathing before the games even started. I was not checking anything.

https://www.chess.com/game/live/123636783622

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/123630891688?tab=review

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/123485114258?tab=reviewI play a lot of games so it's hard for me to dig through and give you examples of what i'm talking about but check the above. Third game especially. 50 moves+ no blunders, only two mistakes, very subtle, this isn't 1150 level. I've literally played 1500's weaker than this. 
And if you go through my history (I know it's pointless) you'll find other examples of this. Literally any loss where I didn't hang a piece is like this. Crazy pressure from my opponents and very strong endgame knowledge. Sandbagging.

"Hey baby, I'm 2000 on chess.com"

Come on, tell me this doesn't make your knees weak.

That's the thing though. If I play a much stronger player, who plays good move after good move, I will probably play worse than usual and eventually blunder. But when I play a weaker player who doesn't pressure me, it's much easier for me to play good moves. So once you start to become better your opponents will become worse. Hope that helps. ;-)

Yeah you're probably right. Those streamer GM's obviously play with 95%+ accuracy all game so their opponent is facing crazy pressure and also doesn't have anywhere to attack because everything is always protected. And endgame you can forget it those guys can do it blindfolded.

Players are stronger these days. That is my explanation.

Yes and no.

Yes players get better. No they dont get THAT much better.

I think the main factor is that the opponent doesnt see that the grandmaster is talking to the audience. So they are facing an opponent who is strangely slow in the opening.

Another big factor is that this is a grandmaster who can play perfect openings most of the time, and catch any errors most easily.

So you are faced with an opponent who takes ages to move in the opening, and you stop paying attention, and suddenly stuff gets real.

P.s.: One could call it the inverse Hikaru effect. In his disrespect series, Hikaru plays really strong moves quickly and weak players just totally tilt because of that.

P.p.s.: Remember, the difference between Stockfish and a grandmaster is *smaller* than the difference between a chessplayer rated 1800 and the grandmaster.