Strong 1300-1400 rated players

Normally I do not have any problems winning against players in the 1600-1750 range, I can also beat 1800s, and on good days even 1900 rated players (sometimes on very good days even 2000s). But most of my current losses have been against players rated 1300-1400. After analyzing these games I realized that these players often played very well, making only few mistakes and nearly no blunders. I wonder why these players are rated so low and give me so much trouble? It is interesting that this happens only in the range between 1300-1400. 1400s and 1500s play totally different and in my opinion often much weaker. Maybe it is a psychological thing? What do you think? Did you have similiar experiences when you have played against players in this rating range? It is just so annoying when I beat an 1800 with brilliant moves in the first game and get my ass kicked in the next game against a 1300.

How sad.

You failed to mention that all your recent games were Unrated. You haven't played a rated game since 9/26.

You can't rely on ratings when you are playing Unrated. 

Your opponents may be sandbaggers. There are people who let their ratings slide and then beat up on unsuspecting higher rated players.

That can happen with rated games too but I think it is more much more likely to happen in unrated games.

This is a possibility. But I've noticed something similar to EdwinP2019.

I used to thrash 1700-1800 players. I can compete with my computer program at 1900 and that's where I start to fail.

But on chess.com I'm getting hammered by 1200-1300 players. They aren't making the sorts of blunders that you'd usually expect them to make.

I believe humans are using chess programs to help them. They can set the analysis time to 1-3 seconds, which gives them 1800-2000 strength. It will still appear as though they're making mistakes when you review the game, but that's because they're not using their programs to their full strength. In addition, many might not be using the program for all their moves, only contentious ones.

This problem exacerbates when you consider that 1800-1900 strength players like me keep losing to 1400 players who are using programs. Our ratings get held back and other innocent 1400 players (who aren't cheating) end up playing us and losing badly because we're far stronger than 1400.

So there are 2 types of really strong 1200-1500 players:

1) Those using programs.

2) 1800-1900 players whose ratings are suppressed from losing to program users.

Quite frankly, chess programs have upped the standard in online chess. 1200-1500 players are far stronger than they used to be. But it's superficial.

I've noticed the same thing about players within 1200-1400 range. Many of them play extremely strong game. Then you look at some of the 1500's and they play worse.

I think it is psychological.

When you play a 1800 - 1900 player you give your best effort, play carefully and focussed.
The 1800 - 1900 player may expect an easy win and play carelessly and lose.

When you play a 1300 - 1400 player he gives his best effort, plays carefully and focussed.
You may expect an easy win and play carelessly and lose.

I am a player in this range, so beware!

I think it is a combination of things:

• you run into players who are at the lowest point of their rating range or simply underrated for whatever reason
• you run into players who play their A game while you happen to be on your B or C game.
• you run into sandbaggers
• you run into plain cheaters
• just bad luck

But believe me, we 1300-1400s are weaker than 1800s. All things being equal, you'll destroy us.

I think it's psychological. I've played several unrated rapid games with players above 1600 and I have won or drawn almost all of them, as a sub 1400 player

I don't think a 1900 should lose to a 1400 regardless of how careless or careful they respectively are. Definitely ssomething else going on

 

Statistically, the 1400 can expect to win or draw some games over the 1900 over many games. The thing is it wouldn't happen very often unless the lower rated player was improving or underrated.

 

I won an OTB rated game against a 1700 when I was just under 1100. And have won or drawn other games with players 300+ points higher rated as well. 

I almost beat Ben Finegold in a blitz game XD

https://www.chess.com/game/live/22119535897

Mouslip

if you played like a 1900 player you would be a 1900 player.  if you are 1900 there is a reason. some players are very strong with tactics but get tunnel vision and lose suddenly. some people never make mistakes but they are bad at tactics. if you face an opponent who is strong where you are weak, they will appear stronger than their rating but your rating is your rating.

edit. also be aware of confirmation bias or only noticing things that comfirm your theory. one player came in complaining that he lost more as white than as black but his statistics showed that this was not the case. he was only remembering games that supported his theory but people were giving him advice on improving his play as white

Formerly, I was paired within a 200-point rating range on either side of my (currently) 1835 rating. Lately, that's not happening. I am getting regularly paired against 1200-1400 players, earning a point a game if I win. Why can't this problem be solved by requiring those players to work themselves up? I have become less interested in playing on chess.com as a result.

 

You might check your settings to see if something got reset: https://support.chess.com/article/1962-how-do-i-choose-what-rating-my-opponents-are

 

Even in rapid and classical, it's perfectly possible.

 

I lose around 20% to 30% of blitz games (I think) against opposition around 500 rating points below me. Never counted it myself though.

I found strange the 1300 1400 blitz rating players too. 

I played for a long time around 1600, then one bad day I dropped since 1300.

I have been stuck at 1300 for weeks, then two days ago I reached 1400+ and now in only 2 days I reached 1500 elo blitz with long series of easy victories. 

Most of people at 1300 is stronger than 1400, all the games against 1400+ were a lot easier than games against 1300.

This is only my opinion and what I have noticed 

 

I think it's because depending on their matchmaking setup, players within the same rating points do not have equal levels of skill. My setup matches me with players rated between -50 to +150 compared to mine. When I won against higher-rated players (mostly 1500s and even 1600s) I noticed that their average rating of opponents they won or lost against was similar to mine, indicating that they achieved their rating by playing against lower-rated opponents. This is probably why many 1400-rated players appeared underrated and better than the 1600-rated players I was matched with.

I assume this 'problem' is something to do with the rating you can join chess.com at:

New to chess: 400. Beginner: 800. Intermediate: 1200. Advanced: 1600.

At 1200 I noticed there was a similar 'bubble' where it was a grind against 1100s to get to 1200 but after getting paired with 1200+ the games were suddenly slightly easier. Any 1300 would absolutely destroy me though so definitely seems to be a group of stronger players who are stuck in a lower rating pool. Would fit with @Carigio's experience as well.

In Arena, there are plenty of 1300-1400 players who play much better against 1800s than they do other 1300s. Might be psychological: 1800 playing poorly while the lower-rated brings their A game. Or, it might be something else. 

Yes, the ELO from this platform is invented not real.

And many weak players decided to start with 2000 ELO.

And others trying to be honest under their capacities, 1400 ELO rated players are good club players.