What I've learnt from smurfing

I disagree. LLama has a bizarre habit of being a bit egotistical. OP is correct that people smurf around the 1000 mark. To what extent, who knows. 

Yeah, sometimes I'm a bit rude.

I was annoyed at the OP for:
1) encouraging people to make lazy excuses (I don't win because the system is cheating me) and
2) suggesting smurfing is rampant (which I think is factually incorrect) and
3) because of 1 and 2 I also saw the OP as a bit of a troll

---

Other times I'm rude for seemingly no reason (although I hope that's less and less).

@llama47 being slightly rude is far better than exceedingly annoying.

These topics pop up all the time, so I tend to show a lot of contempt...

For example "why does chess.com make me play black more than white?"

So you look at their stats and 50.02% of their games were with white, so they're factually incorrect.

Or topics like "I can beat 1800 players sometimes, so why am I rated _____"
So you use chess.com's search function to find out they've never played a player rated as high as 1800. They played one 1700 once, and lost. So again, factually incorrect.

(and others, and I've seen multiple instances of each type over the years)

---

Your claim isn't as easy as disproving in 5 mouse clicks... but we can still talk about it. Let's say there is a barrier of smurfing... this is easy to give evidence for. For example:

1) Show the rating graph, account creation date, highest rating, or other relevant data of opponents you've lost to. A smurf will have various tells.

2) Show the rating graph of an account (it can be one of yours) that broke through the barrier. The graph should be a bit bumpy as smurfs drag the player back down, but eventually the player gets their rating up a few 100 points and stays there after many games.

I am floating between 1200 - 1700 in bullet and i do not see big difference. Maybe a little sharper but even 1200-1300 can be very sharp and fast. Sometimes i see in the lower end very skillful players who are way better than me.

I think current shape affects performance significantly. One day i play like shit and next one i can beat a lot of players.

Judging someone's skill after just one game is very unreliable.

At least it feels like i have no chance. Every move my opponent makes is better than mine.

But in bullet current shape means a lot, at least to me. One day i can play like sh.t, the other i can fly.

There is simply a lot of variance in blitz chess and especially low level blitz. Also, if you are not used to playing much weaker players, you may be out of your comfort zone against such weird openings and tactics. But you'll get used to it and things will even out. Most people are rated pretty much where they should be, although right around 1200 you presumably get a significant number of new accounts that may be weaker or stronger.

You're not a smurf lol. You're just the level of 1000 loooool

bruh im not even 800

Even if I was the level of 1000, which I'm not, me playing against 800s is still considered smurfing.

I think the higher time control the more stable rating is. For sure in rapid even 100 points shows big difference. In 3 min blitz and in bullet it is not so obvious.

Calling someone toxic is toxic in itself. What better way to combat toxicity than to be toxic yourself?

Yeah 1000 rated after 8 games, good one genius

Is calling a bad person bad? Does calling the villain of the story bad, actually mean YOU are bad?

I’m not saying you’re the villain, but, there’s a difference between being rude and toxic. Toxicity is retaliatory rudeness and shaming to people who called out your post, which contained debatable information. Anybody’s allowed to disprove a post that they believe contains blatantly false information. But it isn’t ok to say “what do you know you’re only 800 rated” or “get the f off the high horse” or “someone’s got ego problems” in response.  When you’re wrong, accept it. Instead of being toxic and starting a big fight, if you think people are being rude, be the bigger person and try to work it out.  Accept your mistakes, and maybe your opponents will accept theirs. Not everybody was as mature as they could have been, even if they were just annoyed from this argument. If you really think they’re being toxic just report the person.  Mods will be able to tell who’s right or wrong. 

 Yo how do you go from failing 300 elo puzzles to solving 3800 puzzles? 

I'm not convinced chess.com cheat detection algorithms are robust enough to catch the players who only use the engine sparingly to get themselves out of a jam... and I think that is going on A LOT among people in the 1000 range.