The unbeatable strength of very low rated players

Is that the game that went 1. e4 Nc6 2. e5 Nxe5? LOL!

no

The reason why I loss is because I was relaxing while playing and did not cared about the blunders.

lol sure.

I don't care either.

You got lucky. I've gotten lucky as well, beating a 2000 in rapid, (in my desc)

We all have good games and horrible games.

I must have lucked my way into a 1900+ bullet rating and closing in on 1700 in blitz over the last couple of days. The day of my original post I was in the 1400-1500 range in both time controls. But like you said, its all luck. Thanks for the wonderful and insightful feedback. 

It is true,  I've been playing chess for many years and had a 1600 rating,  I have a 1680 rating in Lichess.   These 900-to 1008ish players are very solid players.   I haven't seen accuracy scores on games that I have played lover than 85%, many in the 90th percentile.  I have 1700-1800 tactical score.   pela-le in OTB with ratings that low are beginners.  the people Ive been playing at the 900-1200 rating are not novices, they are skilled in tactics and make the right moves in the endgame.  Many have no blunders and very few mistakes.  Chess.com should look into this.  Either the occasionally are using a computer, (not every move) but only when they are stuck, or the are really players who are really in the 1500-1700 range.  what gives.  No snotty childish answers would be appreciated!

I am 1891 in chess.com but I donot consider myself a chess player at all. There is so much that I donot know

Link: 404

I play very often with kids and face the same problem. They play so erratic, that you can loose your control over what happens on the board and overlook very easily pieces or positions. Chess, if you play better and more regualrely is a game of pattern recognition*. But when the pieces are shattered over the board, you recognice nothing. That can be a problem, especially in games with less time.

* I remember that I read an article years ago about memory. Scienticts let professional chess players have a look on normal games and their capabilites to memorize this games was astonishing. But when the scientists randomly puttet the pieces on the board, the capabilitiy of memorisation of the masterplayers was not better than that of ordenary people. Pattern recognition.

Nah. Sorry ro break the no talk rule but they're cheaying with an engine on certain or all moves but sometimes using 3rd or 4th choices for extra disguise. Its almost impossible to climb out of that rating pool now unless you get a lucky run with fair players, so I play my faster time control games on another site. The difference was enormous and immediately noticeable. 

Of course it isn't always cheating and you must acknowledge your own blunders. Sometimes you just got beat. And I do believe the standard has increased on here but I think this is significantly due to engine use. Other players have said don't worry about it, it makes you a better player. I disagree as playing computers disguised badly as humans distorts any accurate perception of my growth and development as a player. And quite frankly it ruins my chess day.

people down 2000 makes no big difference at all

Yes, but we're not allowed to talk about them here.

They're easy to infer if you look at simple statistic of E{outcome] given elo vs. elo.   Chessdotcom DGAF.  This is 50% of why I'm not renewing.  
 

Play arenas.

If you play only arenas, the BS is wayyyy way less. My rating consistently goes up playing arenas, and consistently goes down otherwise, with those "massive winning advantage and then opponent plays 100% safe moves and no blunders under time pressure with 1-2s per move" game shapes I'm sure you're familiar with.   I took 1st in an arena and felt like a low-life sandbagger, it was so EZ mode.  But I'm not doing anything to lower my elo, it's forced on me because of [sorry, thread locked due to indirect criticism of chessdotcom, who does literally zero about this at this level]

/my Flipping outcome vs. elo graph is U-shaped/  O_o

I got CRUSHED by a 500 the other day which i found ridiculous because i thought i played decently 

Yeah so that's exactly the sort of thing.   There's no way a real-world 500 (0r 800, 900 ...) finds that f5 in two seconds like that.   Makes you wonder. 

my blitz rating was 500 once upon a time... Down to 200 barely because of some insane low ranks. 

Rating has nothing to do with your strength,  it has to do with your performance.

You can play perfect moves at random,  you could play with a low sample size or you could even time out games where you won not from time management but from just going afk etc.  

I've convinced myself that the really good players are stuck between 500 and 900 and should really be in the 1500 1700 bracket.  I can start a new account, play 5 games, and achieve 1600 rating.  Doesn't mean I'm a 1600 rating player but due to so many people spamming new accounts, the good players following the rules get the shaft.  At 7 to 8 points a game, to go from 600 to 1600 I would have to win 100 games in a row without losing.  100 games of rapid is a full day of nonstop chess WITHOUT losing.

There is a reason why 600 rated player is not 1 600 rated. The difference in how the games look is easy to see. I've seen some of your games. They are full of random moves in the opening and 1 move blunders from both sides. That may happen to stronger players, but not in every game, and not in that abundance.

It is true, after 5 games you may be 1600 rated. You choose 1600, and either play some lower rated people or get lucky in a game or two, but in the long run you wouldn't stay 1600 rated.