Style is not intrinsically linked to rating. You're probably just taking a tiny sample, supported by confirmation bias and drawing wide conclusions from it.
Why some 1300 rated players are more stronger than some 1500 rated players?
Sort:
You may be right I am not sure about my opinion.
SorryImAnon wrote:
Elo is a performance rating, not a measure of strength. Especially considering that the 1300 and 1500 players are both novices,
Errrr... I wouldn't call players in the 1300 to 1500 range novices!!!! Being that novices are newcomers to something, I'd say novices would be in the 800 range or so, with 1300 - 1500 players being intermediates.
I am 50-50 when it comes to these people
Oct 19, 2019
0
#8
SorryImAnon wrote:
Minethma wrote:
Are you talking about FIDE rating or chess.com rating?
You could apply this to either, i'm sure. The scales can't be *that* vastly different at such a low tier. I personally was talking about chess.com rating because that is all i'm familiar with so far.
Okay
Oct 19, 2019
0
#9
SorryImAnon wrote:
Minethma wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
Minethma wrote:
Are you talking about FIDE rating or chess.com rating?
You could apply this to either, i'm sure. The scales can't be *that* vastly different at such a low tier. I personally was talking about chess.com rating because that is all i'm familiar with so far.
Okay
A couple of my opponents have had FIDE ratings on their profiles, and as a new user here, a lot of them have been from this range we are discussing in the forums. The FIDE ratings posted usually aren't more than 225 or 250 points off from their listed chess.com rating.
I would say that chessdotcom ratings are 150 points off FIDE
Oct 19, 2019
0
#10
SorryImAnon wrote:
1_a31-0 wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
Minethma wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
Minethma wrote:
Are you talking about FIDE rating or chess.com rating?
You could apply this to either, i'm sure. The scales can't be *that* vastly different at such a low tier. I personally was talking about chess.com rating because that is all i'm familiar with so far.
Okay
A couple of my opponents have had FIDE ratings on their profiles, and as a new user here, a lot of them have been from this range we are discussing in the forums. The FIDE ratings posted usually aren't more than 225 or 250 points off from their listed chess.com rating.
I would say that chessdotcom ratings are 150 points off FIDE
Sounds about right
Or National rating, since most people at that rating (or U2000) dont play lots of FIDE events
Oct 19, 2019
0
#12
SorryImAnon wrote:
What are the national ratings? I never heard of anything other than FIDE
Ratings specific to one country or federation. Examples include USCF (United States Chess Federation) and CFC (Canadian Chess Federation) ratings
Oct 19, 2019
0
#14
SorryImAnon wrote:
1_a31-0 wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
What are the national ratings? I never heard of anything other than FIDE
Ratings specific to one country or federation. Examples include USCF (United States Chess Federation) and CFC (Canadian Chess Federation) ratings
Are they taken seriously? I haven't seen them advertised on a players profile yet
Yes, personally, my FIDE is 400 points or something lower than my CFC rating -- since I dont play FIDE as much as CFC
Oct 19, 2019
0
#15
SorryImAnon wrote:
1_a31-0 wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
1_a31-0 wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
What are the national ratings? I never heard of anything other than FIDE
Ratings specific to one country or federation. Examples include USCF (United States Chess Federation) and CFC (Canadian Chess Federation) ratings
Are they taken seriously? I haven't seen them advertised on a players profile yet
Yes, personally, my FIDE is 400 points or something lower than my CFC rating -- since I dont play FIDE as much as CFC
That's another reason a 1300 might be stronger than a 1500 as advertised in the OP then, if someone doesn't play then improves that 1300 might be in a different class entirely
Yep. I've heard of people who take year breaks from chess and suddenly start playing 300 points above their rating xD
Oct 19, 2019
0
#16
ehh, im 1500 and i would say i would probably win 9/10 games against your average 1300
Oct 19, 2019
0
#17
1_a31-0 wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
1_a31-0 wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
1_a31-0 wrote:
SorryImAnon wrote:
What are the national ratings? I never heard of anything other than FIDE
Ratings specific to one country or federation. Examples include USCF (United States Chess Federation) and CFC (Canadian Chess Federation) ratings
Are they taken seriously? I haven't seen them advertised on a players profile yet
Yes, personally, my FIDE is 400 points or something lower than my CFC rating -- since I dont play FIDE as much as CFC
That's another reason a 1300 might be stronger than a 1500 as advertised in the OP then, if someone doesn't play then improves that 1300 might be in a different class entirely
Yep. I've heard of people who take year breaks from chess and suddenly start playing 300 points above their rating xD
my uscf is 1292, and i havent played in a tournament in like 4 months, wonder how good i will do xD
Indeed. It is always always ambiguous just exactly what the rating or which ratings the OP could possibly be talking about. A brief check of his stats show Blitz rating (chess.com Live) of 1500. If one is referring to this rating; it's basically a non-starter for me...sorry not sorry I don't respect Blitz or Bullet stuff unless it's OTB. In Daily games, 1300 will be shown to be 1300. Now, 1600-1700 in Daily is credible in that they can beat 1800-1900+. As someone said, it is the style. On the other hand, it doesn't matter to me whatever one's FIDE rating is-playin's the thing...anyone can beat anyone on any given day. Especially in Rapid time controls and still not be reflective of one's true strength. ✌🏽
Sorry to generalize, but I actually would agree with the OP, 1500s tend to be more aggressive than 1300s...I'd unfairly stereotype players as follows 
...
1000-1400 More tentative, looking for their own blunders and mistakes and convinced they can lose easily
1400-1800 Confident, often past their actual ability, convinced they should win most of the time
1800+ Confident, but not convincing themselves unduly of either winning or losing (with some notable exceptions of 2000-ish players that think they are the best thing to ever happen to chess)
I'm not saying this always holds true by any means, but it is a noticeable trend.
SorryImAnon wrote:
Interesting. Is this the case between different sites and federations or is that a chess.com only thing?
I'm sure it is different in different cultures , but on average I would just chalk it up to human nature...1000-1400s are kind of like school children that are somewhat worried about doings things right and prone to questioning themselves, 1400-1800s are like teenagers that think they know everything and want the world to know they are a force to be reckoned with, and 1800+ are adults that have a more balanced and realistic view of their own capabilities and the capabilities of others.
Hello to everyone, I was 1300 for a long time in the past and I realized that when I got into 1450-1550, players were more playing offensive and sacrifice based mindset. But when I get down to 1300 ratings again I find those guys more tougher than 1500 rated players and I cant get to 1500 ratings easily again because 1300-1450 rated players dont have any risks or sacrifices and this gives them a tough defense and playing with them isn't funny because I find their style boring.
Has anyone else noticed this or am I physologically believing in this? Now I have 1500 ratings and people who are at my rating does not gives me any anxiety, however I was feeling an anxiety back in the day against lower players.