Is the average skill level of chess players higher than ever?

I just played a few unrated games, and was amazed at the general level of players rated much lower than I am. I was expecting blunders from left to right, but actually lost to a couple of 300-500 rated players. When I started chess a few years ago, I don't think the low rated players were nearly this good.

Has the wealth of information that is available today skyrocketed the general level of chess play?

I've been watching some videos of a chess youtuber, who's around 500 elo. Every time I watch, I wonder to myself, how that player can be rated so low, because their chess is quite decent to my eye. Have I encountered outliers by chance, or is there an elo hell below 1000, from which it is hard to get out without being severely overrated? 

Thoughts?

Hikaru said 1000s used to be a lot weaker so ya

All Unrated means is that they haven't played any rated games yet.

I encountered a similar phenomenon, so I'm glad you post about it. I think it is partly due to the wealth of information that's available, like you say, and partly due to the amount of smurf accounts on the site. Way too many players creating new accounts to see how they'd fare if they started over, or simply afraid to lose rating on their main accounts. I think it's a combination of these two factors, but lower-rated players are stronger than ever. Likewise, I'm pretty sure those in our rating range are a lot better than they used to be a while ago. Today I played an over 90% accuracy game (granted, the position was quiet) against another player, who also went over 90%, and it ended in a draw. This was a rapid, ~1600-rated game, and it goes to say how simply 'not making blunders' won't get you past this rating, as I saw some higher-rated players state. Maybe back in the day that was the case.

I think that changes with chess.com have caused lower rated players to be much stronger. When I joined chess.com in 2014 I started at 1000 rating and many of the players were complete beginners. I think that because a lot of accounts start off at 400 the skill at that level has gone way up

After the pandemic chess boom, it's indeed a bit more competitive now than before because there are just more people playing.

Just as another plausible explanation, well, in anonymous games (playing as a guest), I've also been destroyed by '500s', I think they were just random 2,000s having fun and wanting to reverse checkmate someone lol (edit: or cheaters)

I have no evidence for this as well, but in my chess rating improvement journey, I've noticed sometimes there are 'rating valleys' from which it's really hard to get out and where a lot of people seem to be stuck too, so, once you climb over that rating valley, you immediately gain a lot of points, now, it might be that I actually got better rather than just being in a range with a lot of people xD. For example, there's a clear difference between a 1500 and 1200 chess understanding, but not so much between a 1500 and a 1700, so hitting 1500 and not dropping back to 1300 might be trickier than improving past 1500 once you actually have the skillset necessary and the rating gain isn't based in a streak of random lucky wins but in you actually outplaying your opponents.

Finally, I've also noticed people that play 10+0 are a lot weaker in general than 15+10 or people that play classical, there's a common type of player that depends a lot on cheap tricks, quick tactics and playing really fast to win games, but when you already know some theory and/or play solidly, they immediately crumble.

@cegalleta If there is not so much difference between a 1500 and a 1700 as you feel then why are you still below 1700. Just put the rating range -150 and +50 and you will be 1700 tomorrow.

10|0 is the fastest rapid time control so I play it

My main thought is that you are wrong.

I am currently watching Eric Rosen new speedrun, and pretty much all opponents rated under 1000 blundered a piece in the first 10-12 moves.

If you haven't seen your 300-500 rated opponents blunder, that means that they did blunder but you just didn't see it.

Well I got to 2100 just by playing 10|0… it’s not a bad time control for improvement

Didn't mean to offend anyone, I just meant a lot of people get to a certain rating then drop sharply because that gain was basically statistical noise rather than actual chess improvement, so rather than hitting a certain rating, what's harder is to actually maintain it.

Regarding the 1500-1700 thing, I truly haven't been able to tell a big difference in skill by the people I've played against, but that's just my personal experience, if it was different for you, it's ok. Regarding my rating, I have nothing to prove and that was just an unprompted personal attack. I always put my rating range from -25 to infinity to get stronger opponents and actually improve, most of my opponents are a lot higher rated than me. There's no merit on beating weaker opponents to farm online rating points.

@cegalleta I just wanted to help you improve. In this tournament I got 4-0 vs. around 1500 opposition so maybe you can spot the difference there. https://www.chess.com/tournament/live/the-improvers-sunday-rapid-early---1200-5972721

In that tournament you beat 3 1300s and 1 1430 but ok. Maybe the main difference between 1500s and 1800s is how fragile their ego is

@cegalleta Yeah probably everything is my fault and you are right. There is no difference between 1500 and 1700. I'm sorry I sounded egoistic.

No no, the players had ratings, the games were unrated. That's how I know what their ratings were, because, you know, they had ratings.

I'm watching the speedrun too, the players do blunder, but some of them put up really good fights as well. Even on Hikaru's speedrun, some players as low as 700 went toe to toe with Hikaru for a long while.

The time control might matter too, I was playing blitz, and I feel like the player pool of blitz is overall stronger than rapid. Most people I know, myself included, have a higher rating at rapid than blitz or bullet.

I probably missed some blunders too, that's entirely plausible.

I'm glad there are at least some people who can reflect on themselves and admit if they feel they are wrong. Takes a lot of character! Shoutout to @Gothenburgess

Even though they were right, and not wrong?

Everything Cegalleta wrote is just nonsense.

Hmm, you seem to know @Cegalleta very personally, @magipi, or why can you definitively say they are lying about their observations in difference in playing strength by 1500s and 1700s? Cegalleta did not claim to have any objective evidence to support their claim. Have you maybe not read their statement carefully?

I wasn't sure so I checked my stats. I had 6 wins, 2 draws and 1 loss vs. 1500-1600 when I was 1700-1800.