Check out this 1188 master player. I'm 1700 blitz on lichess. But here I can't get above 1250 because chess.com admin team long ago logged my i,p address and constantly and vindictively pools my seeks against bots or cheats. I believe none of the players I play are genuine, (Yeah, I realized I played badly but I was growing increasingly flustered at realizing I was playing yet another bot/cheat.)
1080 this one...
Really expected to believe this am I?
Sometimes 1 move threats have a way of stringing together even when the player has no plan.
Those games don't look like cheating to me. You won some material early and then had trouble organizing your pieces, and fell for some simple tactics. That's pretty common.
Check out this 1188 master player. I'm 1700 blitz on lichess. But here I can't get above 1250 because chess.com admin team long ago logged my i,p address and constantly and vindictively pools my seeks against bots or cheats. I believe none of the players I play are genuine, (Yeah, I realized I played badly but I was growing increasingly flustered at realizing I was playing yet another bot/cheat.)
1080 this one...
Really expected to believe this am I?
You met players that played normal sound chess, which a lot of lowrated players does (but not in every game), and you made mistakes that did cost you the games. They did nothing special, except for natural moves and avoiding blunders. There were no genious tactics, only basic good play. You dont have to be a master to play sound.
In this game my opponent commented"ok computer" . Cheatingaccusation happens in good games. Did I play like a master in this one? My rating in bullet was 826 and he must have felt that it was a mismatch between rating and the moves.
I think my game could have been played by both a mediocre and a GM, because its only natural sound moves. Nothing very special. Its my opponents inaccuracies that makes sound basic move hurt him. Tousands of players could have found my moves. I guess if you play my game trough and guess in advance you very often will guess my moves .
Again another game (my latest game) where I tear through a 1300+ player. I even did a strategic queen sac on move 27 to line up my rooks for the pawn promotion. This 1350 rated player didn't play half as well as the 1200's I faced earlier and represents the common level of a 1350 player.
Whenever I see a 1300-1400 player I breathe easy and relax knowing that I'm going have an easy game. This is very strange.
this
https://www.chess.com/live/game/2982256526
You went from clearly winning to clearly losing taking the pawn on Qxa7. Only your opponent didn't realise, that Ra8 traps your queen. The queen sack later was a blunder, but luckily for you, you already were 2 pieces and a pawn up, so sacking the queen was still winning. That doesn't mean that sacking the queen was a good move. You gave your opponent a free chance to get back to the game for no reason. Make another blunder like that, and the game is back to equal. You can't count on chess games that once you are winning enough, you can do whatever to win. No, you want to play as precisely and as good moves as possible.
I think that's another thing that you are missing. You are thinking that you should be steamrolling over 1200s with ease. Assuming you are much higher rated player, and you're playing your best game, then maybe yes. But obviously you aren't a) much higher rated nor b) playing your best games against those opponents. You can't just expect that 1200s selfdestruct if you keep making simple threats long enough. If you don't make meaningful threats, the less likely they are to blunder. You want to see 1200s blunder? Play good chess and put them in a tough position. Most of the games that you have showed here are games, where you aren't exactly playing very well. Then you are surprised that your opponents are still able to keep up with you.
When you show me a game where you play really well, create troubles for your opponent to solve, and still get crushed by a 1200, I'd be much more inclined to believe your theory has some merit.
😐😐😐😐😐
Again another game (my latest game) where I tear through a 1300+ player. I even did a strategic queen sac on move 27 to line up my rooks for the pawn promotion. This 1350 rated player didn't play half as well as the 1200's I faced earlier and represents the common level of a 1350 player.
Whenever I see a 1300-1400 player I breathe easy and relax knowing that I'm going have an easy game. This is very strange.
this
https://www.chess.com/live/game/2982256526
You went from clearly winning to clearly losing taking the pawn on Qxa7. Only your opponent didn't realise, that Ra8 traps your queen. The queen sack later was a blunder, but luckily for you, you already were 2 pieces and a pawn up, so sacking the queen was still winning. That doesn't mean that sacking the queen was a good move. You gave your opponent a free chance to get back to the game for no reason. Make another blunder like that, and the game is back to equal. You can't count on chess games that once you are winning enough, you can do whatever to win. No, you want to play as precisely and as good moves as possible.
I think that's another thing that you are missing. You are thinking that you should be steamrolling over 1200s with ease. Assuming you are much higher rated player, and you're playing your best game, then maybe yes. But obviously you aren't a) much higher rated nor b) playing your best games against those opponents. You can't just expect that 1200s selfdestruct if you keep making simple threats long enough. If you don't make meaningful threats, the less likely they are to blunder. You want to see 1200s blunder? Play good chess and put them in a tough position. Most of the games that you have showed here are games, where you aren't exactly playing very well. Then you are surprised that your opponents are still able to keep up with you.
When you show me a game where you play really well, create troubles for your opponent to solve, and still get crushed by a 1200, I'd be much more inclined to believe your theory has some merit.
Very good evaluation/advices 
I'm also around 1300 rating in rapid and lost to 2 people rated in the 11's yesterday. I don't think there is anything odd about that. The difference between 1100 and 1300 is maybe one less bad move per game. Peoples performance varies, and sometimes they notice good moves and sometimes they miss them.
Check out this 1188 master player. I'm 1700 blitz on lichess. But here I can't get above 1250 because chess.com admin team long ago logged my i,p address and constantly and vindictively pools my seeks against bots or cheats. I believe none of the players I play are genuine, (Yeah, I realized I played badly but I was growing increasingly flustered at realizing I was playing yet another bot/cheat.)
1080 this one...
Really expected to believe this am I?
Nothing strange! Common game among 1200 rated pool strength play in here! Probably a rapid game about 10-15 mins , cos there are not a lot of blunders but still weak strategic play by both sides.
In this position, you played 11.........f5???
Why I say 12...... f5 was weak. You played 12.... f5 to support/support to your Knight on e4 after playing 9...... Ne4.
1. There is no queenside development and centre was unstable. (Probably consider when you did b6, Bb7, Rc8. ) But I still consider f5 as a weak strategy/move even after that supportive sequence, cos
1. f5 simply weakened your king side and e6,f7 diagonal, and there is no benefit of f5, cos you cant do king side attack together with g5 while your centre is likely to open soon.
(Consider "f " file push when centre is closed.
Of course there are multiple strategic mistakes but it will take too long to comment the whole game.
Similar blitz game that I played in last year where my opponent tried to attack on my king side, I simply cleared his center.
https://www.chess.com/live/game/2188725367
I was once told to play the board and NEVER the opponents rating. My internet rating flactuates from 1300 to 1600. My OTB is 1400+. Just play anyone and everyone regardless of ratings. Nothing at stake but egos. I've heard this complaint many times here and have experienced much higher rated aborting against low rated players like me. (And you are one of them per your own admission). My take, I play my best against better opponents, and I don't care if I lose to lower rated....OTB is all different story. You cannot abort! Lol.
? ,???
I was once told to play the board and NEVER the opponents rating. My internet rating flactuates from 1300 to 1600. My OTB is 1400+. Just play anyone and everyone regardless of ratings. Nothing at stake but egos. I've heard this complaint many times here and have experienced much higher rated aborting against low rated players like me. (And you are one of them per your own admission). My take, I play my best against better opponents, and I don't care if I lose to lower rated....OTB is all different story. You cannot abort! Lol.
OTB is something where people have considerable amount of time and money. I dropped playing OTB in my uni life as one tournament waste one week of my uni studies and a couple of tournaments in a year significantly impact my uni studies.
OTB rating will be inflated to those who have easy access to chess clubs and have more free time, spend money for (accommodation, travel ,entry fees) .
I don't know if he has hit sandbaggers or not. But I do know that intentionally or not, they do exist here.
I started a daily game with a guy. I checked his game history before getting past move #1. He was rated about 300 points lower than his actual strength. He had let time lapse on a whole series of games back several months ago that artificially dropped his rating.
Since I wasn't interested in being his punching bag and not getting rated appropriately for the effort, I aborted. I don't mind playing a guy who is stronger than I am. But then I should lose only a few points if I lose, and gain a whole lot if I win.
Aborting, resigning, losing, its all the same point loss right?
As far as I know, aborting does not lead to rating loss, unless it's done too much.
Please visit my thread https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/trolls-2
Aborting, resigning, losing, its all the same point loss right?
As far as I know, aborting does not lead to rating loss, unless it's done too much.
So instead of resigning, if you just refuse to move or disconnect when you know you are losing, that is a way to avoid losing rating? Doesn't sound right. I think aborting before the game starts doesn't count, but after that it is the same as a loss, correct?
Aborting, resigning, losing, its all the same point loss right?
As far as I know, aborting does not lead to rating loss, unless it's done too much.
So instead of resigning, if you just refuse to move or disconnect when you know you are losing, that is a way to avoid losing rating? Doesn't sound right. I think aborting before the game starts doesn't count, but after that it is the same as a loss, correct?
Sorry. I was using abort only for when it's done before a game, though I think the technically correct term for what you're describing is "abandoning" the game, which leads to loss of rating in all cases.
So...this game vs a 1400 player is pretty standard for I easily I mow through these players:
https://www.chess.com/live/game/2979847919
The 1400-1600 players play exactly as I expect them to...and I usually win.
However, there is a great mystery concerning these 1100-1300 players. I either annihilate them in the first 10 moves (and get barely any points) or instead, they play with GM level precision and execution. After analysis it shows that they are INDEED humans players, since they make errors and inaccuracies all over the place. So I know they aren't cheating.
I beleive that they are high level players making ALT accounts to test new openings or straight up troll the bracket. In Starcraft 2 we call this "smurfing", in Rated battlegrounds in World of Warcraft, we call it the same (we get on low rated alt characters). In OTB chess it's called sandbagging.
Seeing sub 1300 players became so frightening that I aborted every game, black or white, when I saw them below 1300. Eventually I was resigning for a few games not realizing that I was being penalized for excessive abortions and took a 25+ point loss, and now I'm forced into this twilight zone bracket again where master level players are on the prowl and straight up making the 1100-1300 bracket unplayable.
I used to be 1700+ in 30 minute chess, so I can see that these players clearly not 1100-1300 noobs. Analysis of these games show that they were planning their attacks and defenses 10-ply ahead and/or with prior experience in these positions.
I cannot for one believe how easily these players fight the Bird opening (f4), while 1400-1600 players get confused and stomped out by the otherwise inferior opening.
Anyway, the game I linked at the start is demonstrative of how TRUE 1300-1400 players play (really bad) and doesn't at all compare to the level of precision and calculation and cruelness of half of these 1100-1300 players (the other half being so bad it hurts and is boring).
So I'm currently in bracket where I win so easily that it's boring or I lose so hard, that I can't even tell what I did wrong and log off for the day.
Does anyone else notice this?
The only thing I can suggest to fix this is to allow 1100-1300 players with 100+ games played to opt out of playing new accounts.
ty
Maybe I am one of these 1100-1300s with strange power. I am a middlegaed man making comeback ca 40 years after a short but strong competing year as a teenager. My strenght in blitz is terribly inconsistent and swings between 30 and 99 caps, because of blunders and timetrouble between accurate games. I have a good feeling for sound and agressive chess and did beat a GM in simultan last autumn. It was said that I was the only player in the bunch that really hard against him. I often play something that looks like Max Lange Attack, and when it works it is terrible, but it is sharp and double-edged. A small error and good counterplay and suddendly i am losing. When you go against a sharp player, it seldom is a draw and if you lose it feels crushing.