Losing to weak players at same rate as strong

For the first time in years I've managed to climb to low 1400s, about 1350. But I've noticed in the past that once I get into a range I tend to stay in that range for a while, no matter what the range is. So I decided to drop down to low 800s, just by resigning games to see if I can get back to 1400 or if it was just luck. The thing is that I noticed that I can't. I can't get past 920 and I've been playing for past few hours. This is not the first time I've done this. I just notice that the analysis of these players is almost the same as those of 1300-1400 players. So does that mean that pretty much everyone plays at those levels analysis wise, but some are just better at not fumbling pieces and know more tactics etc. But essentially just purely by how many moves a player can see ahead it's almost the same for these elo brackets.

2000+ is a master level, I'm not certain if everyone can play that strong even allowing that they don't hang pieces.

I'm talking about blitz, I only play 10 min games. I know it's better to player longer ones, but I really don't have much time for it. Anyhow you guys are missing the point of my question.

If you can't break it past 1000, that means that you're not taking free hanging pieces and that you are hanging your pieces against your opponents. Not being snobby, I'm being 100% serious.

That's what you get for sandbagging lol.

I do not have an otb rating. @misterbasic reread my question, In the first line I said I reached 1400.

@FaronB23 Because I don't enjoy long games.

I read your question. You blatantly stated that you've now lost the ability to cross 920.

What I mean is what you've accomplished in the past is irrelevant if you're no longer able to replicate it now. You need to get back to basics if you're currently losing to 900s and 1000s. Your previous 1400 rating was based on your past successes, not your current ones.

 Last three losses:

1) resigned when a piece up
https://www.chess.com/live/game/1725992918?username=vanillasnake21

2) didn't take free knight on move 15 and later lost
https://www.chess.com/live/game/1725944046?username=vanillasnake21

3) Opponent threatened mate in 1 with the only two pieces off the back rank. You ignored it and got mated
https://www.chess.com/live/game/1725939891?username=vanillasnake21

Thank you for reiterating my point to the OP

Pretty much. Don't fumble pieces = winning.

Looking at even more of your losses, I'm seeing things like playing your first 20 moves at the rate of 2 seconds per move (in a 10 minute game) and hanging, in at least one game, your queen.

Maybe 800 players are tougher than you thought... but if you refuse to take at least a few seconds per move and pay attention it's no wonder you can't get back to your former rating.

Yes all those are true but I was playing same games with 1400 players as well. @misterbasic, when I meant previous I meant earlier today I was 1400, I dropped to 800 on purpose in matter of minutes just to see if I can beat them. And to get to 1400 hundred it took me about 2 days, so all of this happened pretty much within this week. 

I was playing at same speed with higher players, I was also sometimes careless with pieces and lost games because of that. But just scroll down more to a few days ago and I was beating 1350's 5-6 times in a row. 

What I'm getting is that there is no such thing as sub 1200 rating, like if you teach everyone under 1200 rules of chess and give them a chess puzzle for 1200-1400 most of them would solve it. 

I just wanted to get people's thoughts on that since it's evident that if 800 player can outmanuver me, who easily hung into 1350, then they're definitely not 800.

I sort of get this. My rating fluctuates a lot. I got to 1480 blitz maybe a week ago, dropped down to 1260, bounced back up to 1360. And I don't notice much of a difference in play when it comes to the 1200s vs the 1400s. Hell, I've beaten 1500s and 1600s and the same common weaknesses in their play arise. They all seem to focus play on making simple one move threats and going for attacks that ultimately have little bite with vaguely precise defending (not that I manage this in blitz, but hey, it's blitz). They all miss tactics on occasion, and they all find pretty nice tactics on occasion. I guess the one thing you can say is that the relative frequencies of missing basic tactics vs. finding nice tactics change slightly, but the difference doesn't seem to justify the rating difference. Obviously I have many, many weaknesses also, or I wouldn't be 1360 blitz. But my point is there doesn't seem to be much that differentiates people in the, say, 1100-1600 range, except minor differences in tactical ability. And I've indeed played some 800s who play in the same way and don't seem any worse than the 1400s. I guess those are their good days. 

I suppose blitz is quite a complex thing. In regular chess, obviously psychology is still important, but so much more depends on simply making good moves. But in blitz, you can make horrendous moves, but if they make your opponent think, and you can get a time advantage, you can capitalise that way. People often seem to have tunnel vision. They'll miss a piece is hanging or a really basic tactic because they're thinking about their plan on some other part of the board (I am a terrible offender here). But if they're looking at the right part, the tactic positively screams itself out to them. So I think a lot of blitz rating volatility is to do with applying yourself and really being aware of what every move does. 

@mariosuperlative, can you try it right now? Just drop down to 800 and try to go back up to your current 1380. I'm going to keep track of your progress. 

Although I'm in the bottom layers, I sometimes see some great moves and find myself thinking how strong are 1200s if I have hard time with 900s. And another mystery to me is computer's rating. Even most 800 players don't do such silly moves as computer does at 1000 and 800 is a total joke. So I have same sort of suspicion that there isn't much difference between 800 and 1200 as you might expect. My son has also noticed that higher rating opponent quite often doesn't mean stronger player.
But I think it's true that you must also play longer games to improve, because almost every other sport first requires learning technique and then it's much easier to build speed, power or whatever you need. Let me share my latest hard lesson with "kiiking" (an estonian word, it means swinging over the fulcrum). I completely wasted myself with 4,5m swing arms despite the tips I was given, I sorted it all out in my mind and 2 days later I made it with 6m arms and I wasn't even breathing hard.
So, first technique, then other stuff.

 Don't really fancy it tbh. Would take ages..I mean I only go up or down 8 points for winning a game against someone at a similar rating. 

I got to 1500 yesterday and went back to around 1450 shortly after so my 1500 rating was short lived.  I'm going to analyze those loses and study the Indian defenses as white because really most people at that level when you go queen pawn like to play the indian defenses.  I'm bored of e4.  I'm tired of e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 h6.  It literally puts me to sleep now.

@airoslain yes it is what I though too and found out that at least on chess.com rating doesn't really correspond to skill. I was so excited to finally get to that level since I stagnated at 1100 mostly, but I can't really justify it now.

@mariosuperlative it would take a few days maybe a week. But so what? I think it's a good way to have that reference to make sure your rating is legit, otherwise it's just a number with no meaning.

@Daybreak57 lol a 50 point variation you're stressing about? If you didn't read this thread it's not really that specific on this site. By the way about e4 vs d4, I can't stand d4 openings, I just abort the game right away if somebody starts out with d4. But I also play kings indian if I'm forced into it, which is very very boring to me imo. 

By the way is anyone is willing to try the same thing? Dropping their rating and going down to 800 and going up from there.

@vanillasnake and add chess.com tactics. At first I thought who gives a rating to these puzzles, when my real game rating is 300 lower...