The unbeatable strength of very low rated players

haha what idiot thinks you can get to GM just by copying others games

chess is about thinking... the mind is your most powerfull tool in this game. Using strategy works well but its not always applicable and its not always the best way. Chess is complex and requires alot of concentration so use your head and dont relly at all times on memorising moves and tactics.)

Am am at 700 and I can beat people with 1200 but peopel at 700-900 memorize many opening traps(especially the 4 move checkmate on f7).  I have lost many games due to them playing traps with bishops and queens in the 1st 10 moves.

The thread that keeps coming back from the dead!

The OP's account closed ages ago.

lo96, go to my home and see some standard games, you will find that i have beaten higher rated opponents than myself because when i play against the high rated player than me i get a feeling that i must put all my effort and win the game.on the contrary,when i play against low rated players i play casually and i dont seem to care about the game thinking that i will win and end up losing the game!

 now try to find the winning move i overlooked while playing against my cousin and i was black!

You know what they say about playing the board not the opponent. Never underestimating an opponent ever etc.
Point is to try play chess as to find the best move in a position regardless of who or what. In an objective way (which makes chess more interesting anyway) and the moment you stop playing "hope chess" (Ie. bluffing based on rating and stuff) you get a lot stronger.
In online play I even find myself often keeping my eyes deliberately off of my opponent's rating which helps too.

you know 800 Elo players dont know much of the basics. you know more basics but the FACT that they dont know what to play confuses you. Let me be clear, If you play rook and pawn endgame both players know the default LUCENA POSITION. I should move here and he will go here and get a queen, but an 800 ELO doesnt know Lucena position so they simply play an other move and you only studied one way to win Lucena position. (eg- try Lucena position with stockfish it wont be easy to get a queen as playing an opponent)

This is very old  threat but I agree that there is something very weird with low rated players on chess.com. I normally play on [another site -- VP] with 2000+ on all time controls and only this week decided to open an account here. I rarely lose to anyone sub 1800 on [another site]. Yet on chess.com it seems that players rated as low as 1100 are lethal. These low rated players have their openings memorized, solid middle game tactics and incredibly they transition into solid end games where they show sound technique. I often beat players rated 2200+ on all time controls on [another site] so I know my game is solid. Yet I find that if I make just one mistake on chess.com against players sub 1400 they demolish me. I don't buy that there is that big of a gap in strength between websites or that my game is simply lacking against this low rated players. Its one thing if I lost an occasional game but I find it incredibly difficult to win against many 1400+ players here. Even in bullet games 1+0 where you need to have your technique down and play on instinct sub 1400 are playing like 1800+ players on [another site]. So far I beat a couple of 1900+ players on chess.com blitz so I don't get why the lower rated opponents are so strong. Also, you're not going to sell me on that the quality of players on chess.com is that much better (500-600 rating points stronger) than [another site] as that's pure unsubstantiated rubbish. 

the [another site -- VP] rating system isn't the same as the chess.com rating system. Enough said.

I also play OTB USCF classical tournaments and my rating is close to 2000. Are you implying that chess.com ratings are more relevant than USCF ratings? If you think chess.com players are several hundred rating points stronger than USCF and [another site] players you're delusional. 

No, I'm just saying a strength of 1100 in chess.com is the same as 1500 in [another site]. 

And I clearly stated that I'm rated 2000+ on all time controls on [another site] which according to you would put me 500 rating points above an 1100 chess.com player. I still haven't read a valid reason from you why I should lose to any sub 1400 on this site and much less sub 1200 players. 

Below is a 57 move game I played today on chess.com as white with 95% accuracy to beat a 1966 rated player. Feel free to feast your eyes and try to come up with a valid reason why sub 1400 players on chess.com should be anywhere near this strong. 

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/8282716587

@Theimmortalpatzer01 I agree, the 1000 elo bracket on this site is completely borked, and it gets worse the closer you are to the lower end, so the "rating" number at this section of the ladder is not very useful to accurately determine playing strength. 

 This is funny to read, because I have already mentioned this many times, and this kind of threads keep popping up every now and then, which indicates the problem is not new.

 I play Daily chess on another site where I've been around 1600-1900 for the last year and a half, and many players from this site play stronger chess than several 1800, 1900 players i've faced.

 And even when you consider players from this site only, I've noticed many of those 1500 up are "easier" to play than some 1100s and 1200s.

 As to why, well, I don't know. I have speculated that there are so many players stuck in the lower end of the 1000 bracket that they end up playing each other, cancelling out, and failing to climb. Which would explain why some of them play like they belong to their rating, but others play several hundred points above in strength (but are stuck at a lower elo). But it's pure speculation.

 This completely voids the point of an elo rating system if you can't really measure relative playing strength. 

 I mean, Im one of those, a week or so ago I was in the 1400 bracket, now I've fallen to 1100 and I can't climb because the players are as strong (if not stronger) than the players from the 1400 bracket). Then I get to play a 1500 at an Arena, I win easily, and Im sure they are kept asking themselves "why did this 1100 player just beat me?".

 So rating is completely pointless at this level. 

 Maybe as you climb and the elo ladder's player density thins out, ratings become an accurate enough measure of the playing strength.

 Also dont bother with the forums. When I pointed this out in the past I even posted several daily games of mine from the other site which are clearly not at 1100 elo level, and the usual forum regulars disregarded them and went on 

"mad coz bad"

"you are lying"

"you are making up games"

"you are delusional"

etc.

without even realising that in order to make up games at the 1700 level, you need to be 1700. But that's forum trolls for you.

Now seems like as good a time as any to talk about what is considered "beginner" and "intermediate".  In rapid (mostly 30 minute), I'm in the 930 range and I'm the 57th percentile.  I know that's not counting all the blitz and bullet players out there.  But as much as I feel like a complete beginner a lot more often than I like to admit, the reality is that (at least at 30 minute rapid) I'm a slightly above average player.  Seems like that would make me "intermediate", but I see others who are rated around 1500 (putting them in the 95th percentile) who consider themselves intermediate.  I'm sorry, but 95th percentile puts you squarely in the "advanced" category.

@xor_eax_eax05, that seems like the most plausible explanation for what I'm experiencing. Maybe the low point gain from each win causes many players to get stuck in the lower end of the spectrum. For more perspective check out my bullet win ratio vs my rating. My bullet rating is stuck at 1514 while I have an 80%+ win ratio and 61 complete games. This makes absolutely no sense. 

Check out the game below where I was crushing a player here on chess.com rated 1996 until I got into time trouble. 30... Rxd5 is brutal! Had it not been for the clock this would have been an easy win for me being up a bishop. The ratings here make no sense at all to me. 

https://www.chess.com/live/game/8284399315

Absolutely right! 95th percentile in USCF ratings puts your squarely in 2000+ rating. The crazy thing is that on the higher end of the spectrum players are pushing well passed 3000 rating which defies logic when you look at the situation on the lower end. Maybe its time for chess.com to take a hard look at their rating system and fix this dilemma. 

The arguments on here r way more fun than the games.

Please continue.

The facts are even more interesting.