It's Not Adding Up

Im not accusing them of cheating. These are NOT CHEATERS, they dont play like engines. But they dont play like 800 elo players either.

Which brings me to the point I have been making, the low elo bracket is in shambles because there's such a huge disparity in playing strength, at similar elo.

Which is similar to what many others have already pointed out across many other threads.

Some even go paranoid and try to rationalise it saying we are playing site bots or whatever.

You apparently have no idea how 800 rated player should play, given that you assumed they are "learning to move the pieces". Nonsense. They play as you do, as you are one of them. They make some reasonable moves and then they make a crazy blunder. So do you.

"The low elo bracket" is the majority of all players. Millions and millions. There is no "disparity in playing strength". If there is, those who consistently win will go up, and those who consistently lose will go down, and they won't be rated the same.

I already explained to you how Ive been playing club players for years at Daily chess and Im doing well.

Im clearly NOT 800 elo rated. My results against players at 1700+ elo on other sites who have accounts here also proves that I am not 800 elo rated.

Clear as a day to me no real 800 elo would attain a 3-2-2 record against a 1900 player at slow chess.

You are just trolling and you contribute to try to shut down the discussion about how many 800 elo players on this site play so accurate and strong, while others are actually 800 elo and get crushed in 10 moves.

800 elo players should never play at 50, 40, 30, even 20 centipawn loss at blitz time controls. IF you think it's normal then what's left for higher elo, lol.

The whole online chess gets more fishy as the years go by, OP has a point, the strenght levels in 800 pool is astonishing, you have players who a very accurate outplay you positionally, many will obliterate you straight out of the opening, but then all of a sudden you get a 800 player who blunders pieces left and right, so the strength level is from top to bottom, sometimes you get a 800 who has played 50k+ games and if you throw an opening he knows by heart you get smashed, the midgame and endgame stuff is off the charts as well, sometimes the 800s you play feel like you're playing a robot, moves in seconds top engine lines other times you get 800s who know nothing of middlegame and just move pieces around what seems like randomly, then you get the occasion cheaters and so the rating number pretty much becomes absolutely uselss to the point where you could just remove it altogethers, the experience is same as playing anonymous lichess games, excepts here although you are asigned a rating but people close to your own rating play either like a gm or lika complete beginner, which I agree doesnt make any sense

@xor_eax_eax05

I feel that discussion with you is pointless at this point, so this is my last post here. You can find examples of people with similar ratings, but usually that is not the case. Below let's say 2200 on average on Lichess the rating is weaker, not by 1 000 points of course. Never by that much.

On somewhat lower level, the difference is around 300 points (perhaps a bit more on lowest levels). On let's say 1 800 level, it is around 200 points difference. Around 2 200 or slightly higher, the ratings are about the same. On highest levels, chess.com ratings are higher actually. The reason is that here there are many more lower rated players. All this is saying it roughly but the point remains.

There are exceptions of course, and not everyone is the same. Even here the ratings can vary. For instance when I play 60|0 I would drop to lower 1 600 rating because there are not that many people playing that time control at that rating range. When I play 30|0 more often, my rating increases around 100 - 150 points. So, you can't really expect the ratings to transfer.

As for Daily chess, that is not the same game. It is very different. It all depends on the effort, as one can blitz out moves, the other can ponder for days. Plus you have the opening tab incorporated, you can calculate more easily in daily as well.

If you are around 1 700 - 1 800 there, you probably should be around 1 500 - 1 600 here (again very rough estimation, you can be lower or higher than that), if you do your best.

But if you keep throwing games on purpose while talking about unfair play by others, then you are actually part of the problem, and you can't be taken seriously by most of the people.

In any case, do as you wish and have a nice day.

Why are you calling us cheater ?hum cheater nahi hai

And why shouldn't its because of overloaded website? As I say there are probably so many players that just become really into chess because of GothamChess.

Daily chess is not real chess. Face it. I also play daily games for clubs and I just can't be bothered, even though I have 3 days to do a move I don't usually spend more than couple of seconds on one. Perhaps a minute on a critical move all right, but I don't spend days analysing the game like so many people here. You can beat me in a daily game too but that doesn't really mean anything.
Another thing is you have access to library which benefits weaker players who are usually bad at their opening, don't develop their pieces correctly, butcher their pawn structures whatever. Library allows them to safely develop and equalise on move 10. Library is also reason why so many good gambits and tricks do not work in daily games. Because people use library and instantly know the best counter play. 

I think you forget about how addictive chess is to some people. When I find GothamChess, I play like 10 rapid games a day or more. Chess performance is influenced by the players state of mind, so if they're in a good state of mind their performance will also be good while in a bad state of mind their performance will be worse

All that you mention means Daily chess is high quality chess.

Just because you choose to play in 1 second every move at a classical-like time control, while your opponent takes several minutes to consider a plan, does not mean the chess is not "real chess".

If someone plays a 4-hour long classical time control game at a tournament, and decides to barely think for a few seconds every move, and their opponent takes time to plan and crushes them long term, then they cannot claim the opponent was weaker because he took longer to think or that Classical is not real chess.

"High quality" chess with full access to library. Please.... You can't be serious.

Who said the players are going in the library? Do you have a prove? Just because something can't be proven wrong doesn't mean it's right. Why would someone open library to cheat if they can just cheat with chess bots? It's taking a way more long time. If they're cheating the accuracy will probably go higher and chess.com will notices he/she cheats

You've obviously never tried to use a database. You think you are going to play like a GM because you use a database of GM games? All the opponent has to do is push a pawn to, let's say, a3 instead of a4 like Magnus played, and you entire database will be useless, and you will be back to your real elo instead of FIDE 2800 from there on.

I think chess bots have a pattern on what opening to play or/and on what every move to play blunder/best move so it will probably not that hard to detect. I noticed that because I make a forum about playing one move against martin bot and I copy paste the moves everytime someone responds. But I think people won't noticed that if they don't do some analysis to chess bots

You keep mentioning the comparison to 'another site'. I had the reverse experience to the one you mentioned. I have been a long time member of another site, but only ever played challenges against my friends. Last year I decided to play some blitz on that site.

I was expecting to breeze through the lower ranked players and fairly rapidly reach what various forum threads told me my equivalent rating should be by their system. Instead I found myself surprised by the quality of the play, and astonished by how accurate I seemed to need to be to gain ranking consistently.

But you know what? I did, slowly but surely, gain rating points. I ground out wins when they didn't come easily, and I gratefully accepted the gift games that came my way. And I did, indeed, end up at the rating I'd targeted. I'm willing to bet that if you actually played all your games to the end, rather than getting frustrated and resigning with the outcome still uncertain, you'd slowly but surely gain rating too. In all honesty I think you're just underestimating the work you did to get to your rating on the other site.

There are many cheaters but you need to understand some people are just having a good day or maybe they are underrated. Look at me for example , never used computer , gained 250 elo since new year. I got accused for cheating just because I played a blunder in the opening retaliated in the middle game. And my opponent goes like ‘how are you playing so good suddenly , you must be cheating’ and he reported me. Please guys, not everyone is a cheater. I am a 1400 rated player and sometimes loose to a 1150 over the board.

Merely stating that you aren’t a cheater isn’t enough to convince others. Don’t assume that people will take your word for it; after all, people can lie. That doesn’t mean I think you’re lying. I’m just suggesting that you shouldn’t expect people to believe you simply because you say you aren’t cheating.

You can disagree with me if you like, but I am convinced there are more people on here using some kind of assistance to cheat than there are honest players. I am also aware that cheaters can fool detectors simply by cheating only when they are in a difficult situation and need help to find the best move.
And frankly, something needs to be done with the matching system. It's not intuitive enough to accommodate less experienced players. I am often matched up against people who clearly have a lot of skill at this game—far greater than mine. And this simply isn't fair. There must be a better way to do this.

Speak for yourself.