Is it just me or people with rating 1000-1100 (bullet) play worse than those with 850-1000?
Based on my own experience: 900 are better than 1000 and 1100. 1300 and 1400 are better than 1500. And then things go more normally

This post is nonsense.. but.. maybe you start seeing some deliberate "Lefong"s in the 1100 level and think that's just terrible play?
"Lefong"s are when you make legal moves that threaten a piece or a heavy piece but the move itself actually loses your own piece cleanly, but it's a bullet thing where you try to steal the material if your opponent is pre-moving...
Named after FM Lefong Hua

Based on my own experience: 900 are better than 1000 and 1100. 1300 and 1400 are better than 1500. And then things go more normally
Weird, but yes I agree. My personal explanation is that 1000s and 1100s try to play faster at the expense of worse moves, whereas 900s play better moves at the expense of more time on the clock. I guess for time controls like 1|0, the first strategy is more effective, especially at lower ratings
I have seen this also and It might even be due to reaching a 1000 and over that you don't play so hard as a 900. Maybe the number 1000 has a sense of completion or maybe I am saying complete nonsense. I don't know but I definitely see 900's playing a lot grittier.


I have noticed the exact same thing. Maybe some function of the level that Chess.com starts people at? I have forgotten but if Chess.com starts people at 800 when in fact the average actual rating of someone starting bullet is actually 1000 then they will be making the 800 level actually harder than say 900 because they have people who are rated 200 points below their actual level.