Why there are so many people with around 1500> games in rapid yet they're hardstuck on 800-900 elo?

Okay so I just started playing chess again "seriously" like a month algo and I climbed quite relatively fast from 400 elo to 830+. My winrate was around 70% 

So yeah whenever I lose I like to analyze My games and see in which part I've blundered but Jesús the amount of times I've played against people who have over 3000 games is insanely high.

It's clear I sometimes play against one of those players since many of them make very logical moves and the match becomes very difficult. Like the difference between 700-800 elo skills vs 800-900 is insanely remarkable and high, I honestly didn't expect it. I'd expect more casual players around 250-500 elo

Mano qué carajo te pasa

people just play games continuously because that's the only bit they like about chess the achill playing

I'm so fascinated by these threads. I have got no idea how it is only possible to be so low at chess when my very first rating (rapid btw) was about 1500 like 40 years ago. How do you do that? Are you only looking at the board?

It is true that I played cafe/family casual chess for years before trying out competition, and it is also true that I've casualy spent a few hour reading chess books for beginners. Still, I can't figure out it'd be enough. What's wrong with you guys? Mobile phone? Internet? Instant gratification culture? I don't get it.

lower rated players are only thinking of how the peices move and dont have time to think of tactics as well

What do you mean no time? I do see players in daily games making their moves in like 1 minute... And blundering away material for it.

I know out of experience, I could take any of them and turn them into 1600 within 6 months, provided they would do what is told to them.

But I also know by experience, nearly none of them will follow instructions, always going for shortcuts and good excuses, making "exceptions" a routine that kills every attempt of setting up training habits.

Again, why so? Are you all nuts or something?

When you start at chess,com first ca 25 games are most highy priced. After that - mostly 6-10 for a win.

Which does what in your opinion?

I think when you lost your first games then it is harder to raise your elo

Please correct me if I am wrong

Of course you're wrong. Would you gain only 1 Elo point a day, you would go up +350-400 in a year.

And you're wrong because a higher Glicko only raises you up fast when you win, not when, like you said, lost. So, it's a double edged blade, not a stairway to heaven.

And you're wrong, also because if your value is about 1400 and you're rated like 1100, you'll get there within a few days by playing 10 games a day.

It's hard to go up, when your chess strenght is close to your rating, no matter other factors.

I registered the 2nd of June with an evaluated rating at 800, on the 7th I crossed the 2000 line after like 100 games. And by the 19th I was over 2100. Is that long? No it's nothing. 2 weeks to go from 800 to 2100 is fast enough.

If one doesn't upgrade from 800 to above, it's only because they're doing their learning and training wrong and are still 800 in practical strenght. Most probably because they keep it up thinking "it's just a game" or something such.

quite a lot of people dont study at all