Rating

I'm an older guy who is trying to get back to playing live games after a long hiatus. So I'm not playing that well now and am at a starting rating of about 900-something, which is not a whole lot above beginner. So I did some playing today with players supposedly at my level and encountered all kinds of weird openings in losing three games. In the game analysis, the play of all three of my opponents was rated at 1,500 or above, and one of them played at 90 percent accuracy. I deserved to lose the games, but is sure didn't feel as if I were playing people at my current level.

the game review is a bit inflated in my opinion

in an OTB game analysis, I apparently played like a 2500 (I'm 1300)

Game accuracy on it's own is no indication of cheating.

I just beat a 650 at 1/1, I have beat 570, 560, 500's, yet 360-420's are harder to beat, infact I am losing against them all the time. There is no explanation for this, other than these people must be cheating, maybe not every move, but still cheating. How can lower level elos be harder to beat than higher ones, it defies logic and reason.

Yeah, yeah, those guys are all cheating, and somehow they are still rated 360-420. Totally reasonable explanation.

You haven't given an explanation for it. It's the usual no such thing has cheating response.

That usual no such what has what?

By the way, my explanation is that you are wrong. 400 rated players are not harder to beat than 650 rated players.

I know what you said, and how many 400 have you played recently, given you are 1700?

You are playing bullet so I will stick to that.

Against 360 - 420 rated opponents: 160 W - 90 L
Against 500 - 600 rated opponents: 95 W - 164 L

So what you say is not correct. You probably lost some games recently and that is why you think that.

I am talking recently and that is a lot games.

That is changing the narrative. You said that lower elo is tougher to beat. I gave you statistics and now you are talking about recent results, narrowing the pool. When the pool is narrow enough all kinds of results are possible.

Streaks are normal, good and bad. I once won against FM in 30|30 game here. For whatever reason he was a few pawns up, blundered a rook, and ended up losing. On the other hand, I lost some games against sub 1 000 players. That doesn't mean that sub 1000 player is more difficult to beat than FM.

But let's see even the statistics from 1st December till today.

Against 360 - 420 rated opponents: 87 W - 55 L
Against 500 - 600 rated opponents: 56 W - 93 L

So even in this case (which is less dependable for statistical purpose), your statement is still false.

Higher elos tend to play more technical and predictable moves, lower elos play more unpredictable moves and generally on whim moves. So it's easier not being able to defend all the times. Plus even if wasn't the case, you're implying that higher elo shouldn't lose and should dominate, but it's not really the case, even lower elos (let it be FIDE rated or even Chess.com) can win, it doesn't really matter. Yes it might be suspecious like you have 500-1000 elo difference and you lose the game one-sidedly,

I have gone from 570ish to 398 in a day, I will probably go even lower, this is bollox, I am f off with this game. It maybe I have reached my limit, 570 is all I will be able to obtain, I won't get any higher. I am close to giving up, I don't see the point carrying on really. I have tried to get to 600, but it's looking impossibe. A few more games and I am going to quit. I suspect people are cheating, because people cheat and some of their moves look too good for 370, 390's.

Anyway let them cheat I am pretty close to being done with bullet.

By the way, even if we take only today's games, you are still wrong.

Against 360 - 420 rated opponents: 16 W - 12 L
Against 420 - 600 rated opponents: 16 W - 29 L (only 2 games against 500-600 opponents and you lost both)

You don't get it 12 Lost.

Still significantly over 50% success rate, while the second one is a lot worse, which is expected. So saying that 360-420 people are more difficult to play against is not correct.

I get it, you got on a bit of a tilt and are losing rating points. This is happening even in longer time controls. In bullet, streaks are very expected, because you can play hundreds of games per day, and if something is off that day, one will lose a lot of games.

It doesn't mean that all these sub 500 players are cheating. Some ... sure, but a great majority is not.

But of course, you are entitled to your own opinion.

It feels like it, people cheating, but probably I have reached my limit, 570 was the highest I am going to get, losing all these games makes you feel angry. It's time to quit bullet I guess, see how far I can get on blitz then rapid and then call it a day with chess.

Mrbonehead is right. Chess.com pools are so screwed up that lower rated players are harder to beat than higher ones.

You look at some of the accuracies of 400 rated players and you will see they play just as accurately as me, and I'm 2400 blitz.

Then it might be worth reporting them. Because a gap of 2000 definately indicates cheating unless some GM is in disguise

What the guy wrote is complete nonsense. If you think that it's correct, you have no idea what accuracy means.

HPC probably knows, but he's just trolling as usual.