Why am I facing so many players that are MUCH stronger than their rating?

Well, I wonder that too. I'm not really good with ~700 rating. However, I managed to play steadily above an 800-match rating. I play with others that have a below 700 rating and leave the match with 1.5k+ match ratings and no single blunders or bad moves.

There could be a few players having a bad day or a good day but at a below 700 ratings you are not supposed to play 1.5k+ matches without single mistakes that often.

I really wanted to get back into chess (played 20 years ago with 1.4k elo) but this really takes all fun away if I feel like I play against chess computers at least half of the matches.

Some people just memorize opening theory.

Exactly, when you play with people lower rated opponents, its easier to get a significantly higher performance rating. the 100 point fluctuation between 700 and 800 isn't a lot though and you don't need to worry about that.

Yes everything here is dubious. I m no good at chess but I can when someone is too good for their rating. Yesterday I played somrone with rating <1000 who did a brilliant sacrifice you dont expect to see at that rating. The other time I had a winning streak and then I faced three opponents in a row who play the Nizmo, which I m very weak at. Im moving to other platform and OTB

ok im a low elo bc im 400 fighting ppl who feel like 900s i can beat the bots but the players...

so ofc im low rated because the players beat me into 400

A lot of Chessplayers don't have much of a life and this is all they do.

Maybe you should quit if Chess is no more fun for you.

No.

Bye-bye. If you can't handle it, try other sites or play people in person.

The game-rating thing is complete nonsense and should be ignored, on average it scores players much higher than their actual ratings.

@danielsofly your opponents are getting high accuracy ratings against you because you are giving them obvious moves to make so often. Make less random aggressive moves that don't do anything and concentrate more on improving your own position and thinking about your opponent's threats. Game 2 is a good example where 6. c5, 7. Bb5+ and 8. Qa4 were all achieving absolutely nothing and just misplacing your pieces. 12. Ng5 again does not have a threat or an idea behind it and you are still undeveloped, it just allowed h6 a couple moves later kicking the knight to an awkward square. Then 23. Rf5 is again a random aggressive move where you have spent over 30 seconds but not asked what your opponent would play if it was their turn. Flip the board over and look from Black's perspective and you will see how quickly Nxe3 jumps out at you. If you want your opponents to be inaccurate, make it more difficult for them to move.

Having thought about this, I think there is some truth in what was said by Strayaningen.

The ratings cant always be trusted, especially if you (A) go down an obvious route or (B) make errors that let the opponent in. And once they get one good move, suddenly the feel like they are playing puzzle rush and start finding the moves like Hikaru! It is weird how it works. One error and it can all go wrong for one player and all go right for the other.

As for the after game estimated ratings, I think they ARE actually very close to Rapid Level. The ratings are usually very close to the ratings the players have. But Bullet and Blitz, the level is just MUCH higher: 200-300 points higher. Very very common for 1700 rated players to put a 2000 quality game in

The game ratings are anchored primarily on actual rating. That is, if you are a 1000 rapid player and have a 95% accuracy game, it will probably tell you you played like a 1600, but if I do that at 2000, it will tell me I played like a 2300.

I can't find it now, but there was data posted to Reddit the other day showing that on average the "estimated ratings" are about 200 points higher than actual rating. Maybe this is different between rapid and blitz but I kind of doubt it.

In any case it's a totally meaningless made up number and (like Brilliant Moves) exists to fulfil chesscom's prime business need, which is motivating people to run Game Reviews, because people need subscriptions to do that.

It doesn't work that way. Even for high rated players, there is no obvious correspondence between rating and mistake rate, because it depends on your style. If you head for wild positions, both players are liable to make mistakes. If you play more straightforwardly, both players will have higher accuracy ratings.

An example is in the recent Julius Baer Cup final between Magnus Carlsen and Alireza Firoujza, here (scroll to "Winners Bracket Final"). In the first two games, which both went into wild positions, they won one each while averaging less than 80% accuracy with a whole bunch of mistakes and blunders. This is worse than I would typically expect from a well-played game of mine. In the third game, which was quieter and ended in a draw, it was 99.4% vs 99.6% accuracy. Even for the best players in the world, the determining factor for error rate is the nature of the position.

Another way to put this is that if I play the players you are playing, they will make more mistakes and blunders than when you play them, because I will put them in situations that are more difficult to play. That was my point in the previous post. If your opponents play with high accuracy, it might be because they are good, but it might also be because you are failing to pose them any problems.

I have recently been encountering many players in the 550 range that are much worse than the players I was facing at the 400 range; I'm getting better as I learn, but it's so strange that there appears to be a severely reversed skill rating. Many of the 550 rated players are quitting after they make any mistakes though too. They should have waited for me to make many more mistakes in the end game to help them win.

Accuracy is not a measure of rating.
Its just as easy for a 500 to get a 95%+ accuracy game as it is for a 2200, or even a master. 
This is because if your opponent plays badly then the best moves will be obvious and you can get high accuracy. Opponents play better as you go higher but you also play better, so it doesn't get easier or harder. Its more of a measure of rating difference, and estimated play strength in game review reflects this.

I agree with you partially. One single error by one player, and then the other player can get on top and all the best moves suddenly become obvious. Lower level players can get 90%+.

But I dont think a 500 level player will be accurate unless they have learned the main line of an opening, such as the Rui Lopez or Benko gambit. Lower level players usually haven't learned much theory so they will be making bad moves more or less from the start. So they really should be getting 80% plus, unless their opponent really crumbles at the start.

Also, after 15 or so moves, most players at all levels are out of the preparation and you would expect accuracy to drop away from that of the engine, unless they are VERY high level players

Even against a lower leveled player, if their opponent tries to play scholars mate, but hangs their queen they would get 90+
However if your opponent plays as well as you, even grandmasters sometimes don't cross 90%.

that was a good explaining of a problem i have also had with players that seem to play way above their ranking -- with book moves and they finish me much sooner than others do with similar ratings -- where i play the same exact moves thanks for the answer sort of but it made sense to me --