Linking people's style to their rating is just selective memory. You get all styles of play at all levels, the only difference is you obviously get fewer (deliberate) tactics of more depth than 1 or 2 moves the lower the rating because they simply don't have the skills usually. Whether someone plays aggressively or not though is nothing to do with rating, at least at recreational levels, which is where > 95% of chess.com players play.
Why some 1300 rated players are more stronger than some 1500 rated players?
Sort:
Oct 20, 2019
0
#23
btickler wrote:
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.
I am an adult now ? 
hi nice one
Overlord97 wrote:
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.
Yeah, my skill level is really at 2000 but I keep losing to 1600s because they keep playing the moves I don’t expect them too.
I’m just kidding, but really, sometimes it does seem like the people lower than what you think is your ‘actual’ rating are playing really strongly. That is probably because of your mindset: (this shouldn’t be too hard to win. I’m more skilled) OR because they were simply having a good day and you weren’t.
In the end you gotta be able to (roughly) beat everyone lower than your rating (otherwise your rating is incorrect) so don’t sweat too much. They may seem stronger, but they really aren't.
As for the ‘anxiety’, that is definitely psychological. You were probably afraid of losing because you were ‘supposed’ to win, but now you ‘know’ that these are ‘proper’ opponents.
One more thing: I haven’t come across many 1500s who randomly attack and sacrifice pieces. I wish I did, because then I would jump much higher. To me, <1500s sacrifice and blunder pieces much more frequently than 1500s, but my say definitely isn’t conclusive.
I hope this is helpful in anyway 
Hermione2008 wrote:
Overlord97 wrote:
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.
Most 1300's have just started on chess.com and are actually very good OTB or have not played daily/bullet/blitz/rapid for a while. If not, then they have less experience in chess and play safer as to not losing in the opening.
Ah, this is true as well.
btickler wrote:
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.
Fascinating! I’m probably waaaaaaaaay overconfident because my ego is so inflated 
. I SHOULD DEFINITELY WIN ALL THE TIME IF ONLY YOU WOULD PLAY THE MOVES I WANT YOU TO. AND SACRIFICE YOUR QUEEN ON MOVE 3.
But in all seriousness, I think that this holds true for roughly 50-60% of Chess players here. And the part about the 2000+ rated players who think they’re the ‘best thing that ever happened to chess’ just made me laugh because I remember many many many. Especially one guy who created a 5-part forum series about his awesomeness. Anyone remember that?
not everyone play boring games. some r just like me, don't get enough rating cause experimenting a lot for new ideas and technic...cause I don't do chess engine and notation...I want to play unique style create by me
Oct 20, 2019
0
#29
Sometimes you just play into their prep and they don't blunder and you made a mistake and now they are winning. Most games are decided by blunders at our level. If you make a blunder against a 1300, he is going to try and capitalize on it like a 1500 would, and will probably be just as precise of converting the win.
My guess is you are forgetting that you blundered away the game at some point with the 1300's. They can also be very mechanical in thinking as well as a 1500 would be. Blunders decide games at our level, or just not being familiar with the tactics in the position, and falling for them. I can show you games where I played where I completely owned my opponent with tactics, and I can show you games where I just blundered away the game.
It's the blunders that decide the games, not the ratings.
Try and become more vigilant when facing lower-rated opponents. That's what I did, and I stopped being beaten by people below 1400.
Here is my advice. Rig it on your system so that you play people 200 rating points and more above your rating, and up to about to your rating level at the lowest possible. There you will face people that are above your rating, and occasionally face people below your rating. Pay special attention to when you are facing people lower than your rating because that is where you have to train to try and strive for a win. You can do it!
1300 players in bullet play as fast as 1600-1700 players with similar accuracy. Maybe a few more blunders but overwhelmingly similar in speed and strength of moves. Playing 1500 players in bullet at least is much easier overall than 1300. You can analyze the games to see how similar the strength of the moves are but the speed is consistently faster. It doesn't make sense.
Apr 21, 2022
0
#32
Because the rating ladder on this site makes absolutely no sense, at least, in the under 2000 bracket.
Unrealistic games against players at very low 1000 elo, analysed with engines afterwards, throw incredibly low centipawn losses, many in their 50, sometimes even as low as 30 or 20. That's titled player territory.
1200 players who can mantain an almost +0.0 evaluation for the first 10/20 moves at least, and I've had games in which all game went like that:
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/44292576315?tab=review
and have barely 1 mistake or 1 blunder in 20/30 moves, but are ranked 1200 elo.
Then you go play the Arena and you go against >1500 and they play like this instead:
https://www.chess.com/game/live/43826054435
(he even had the chance to win the game after I blundered back, but failed to notice it).
or this
https://www.chess.com/game/live/43823072179
(I resigned because I felt bad for this person, felt like he had absolutely no concept of hanging pieces or anything of the sort - look at all the opportunities I gave him to move their pieces away).
I play Daily chess at 1800 level at Gameknot, against players of whom many are similarly rated in FIDE rating (take away maybe 100 points or so), where I analyse my games with Stockfish as well, and many many times some of my games against 1000 elo players from this site, from the 10+0 rapid pool turn out to be even more accurate centipawn-wise than the Daily games.
Which is obviously insane, because no 1000 or 1200 elo player in chess.com should be able to attain such low centipawn losses or match such performances.
And then of course you have the other type of players, the ones who are accurately strong as you would expect from a 1000 elo player, and you end up +15 by move 10, lol.
So you never know what you are playing against, which makes the ladder completely unreliable.
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.
I remember an adult beginner complaining that all content for people below 1800 was targeted at little kids, and was looking for an "Adult beginner course" or something like that so I think you might be on to something. Would you say most people below a certain threshold are almost exclusively youths?
No, I just liken the various ratings ranges to a form of "chess maturity" that does not tie directly to real age at all. Just their level of development in the game. Of course, real age does influence this to some degree, but then again that is no absolute either. Lots of mature young people and immature adults around, bucking the averages.