Low Rated Players play like intermediate players

And it's fun. I don't really obsess about it and it isn't tied into my self-esteem. But it is fun, the rating system. It provides a context for individual games. They aren't disjointed, unconnected, isolated events. They're part of a bigger, overarching goal that gives them an extra dimension, added meaning.

Like Baseball Seasons do for Baseball games.

I'm shootin' for 1000, myself.

hi... think lot of bots playing... crazy

That's also not true.

What would people make of a relatively low-rated player getting 98% accuracy in the Game Review? A case for investigation?

You can report it but chess.com's cheat detection system considers accuracy % irrelevant.

I did report it. I'll see what happens. Odd that the accuracy is considered irrelevant. Because when 900-rated Joe Shmo plays like Mikhail Tal, certain possibilities arise. Suspicions might be unjust but they do arise.

Yeah, it's over my pay grade, but they say it raises too many false flags.

If you blundered early then it makes sense that your opponent got a very high accuracy. Otherwise, they were probably cheating.

playing 2-1 bullet--at 900 rating i am repeatedly--1 out of 3--playing players with 1300-1500 rapid rating and 1200-1600 blizt. when my rating reaches about 1050 this seems to stop.

The truth is that it's been studied, and humans really do suck at cheat detection. Almost all suspicions of cheating are false.

Experts advise caution. Amateurs can study a game for a few minutes and have no doubts.

And, again, high rated players can reach expert level within hours... Cramling went from 400 to 2000 in 8 1/2 hours.

If you want to get a better rating, the trick is to play better.

The "wall of cheaters" is a convenient myth for those who think they deserve a better rating than they have.

Man the way people go on a rant when they cant accept they are just bad is crazy

Yep. I think the solution is stop taking it so seriously or, sure, play hard, study, etc... but don't get your ego involved.

I think one of the reasons cheaters thrive is that many people have the default response "Oh, you just play chess badly." A response to many situations in life, some a lot more serious than chess.

Anyway, even if I accepted I was a bad chess player, what good would the ego depletion do?

It's the default response because it is by far the more likely cause of a low rating. The cure for your ego depletion is to stop thinking chess is an ersatz IQ test. Not to imagine your opponents are cheating or chess.com is short-changing you. A few days ago, an IM said, "Look at my rating compared to yours."

I said, "I'm pretty sure you're not 2 1/2 times as smart as me, else I have some serious life questions for ya'. Besides, I aced my college SAT's, every subject. How about you?"

As it happens, two opponents of mine were found to be cheating and I was given some points back, though that is two among probably over a hundred. So the phenomenon exists. If you want to fall back on "you're just bad at chess", that's up to you.

It's kind of how some people approach life. Mass unemployment in the 1930s was the result of weaknesses in the economic system. For others, there was just a mass outbreak of laziness. Homeless are just layabouts for some - for others, there is a noticeable decline in affordable housing.

I'm not "falling back" on anything. And it's not "how I approach life". What an odd thing to say.

You apparently think you deserve a higher rating.

I'm saying that if there is something besides your relative skill that *keeps* you from a higher rating, how do you explain it NOT holding others back?