Why are low rated players so good?!

I have been playing again, I had a chess phase every once in a while for my whole life, I used to be rated 800-1200, but I started a new account and selected beginner. My rating is around 500, but I'm definitely not new to chess. Everyone in my rating is better than my old rating, I seem to win more against bots with 1000 rating than players with 500

Elo is not a static metric, it is relative to other players. So now that online chess is more popular and the online player base improved, your elo dropped appropriately.

Playing against human opponents can be more stressful than playing against bots. This might affect your performance.

One other reason is that rating just don't matter. A rating is just an estimate on how well people play/played. It is not reliable. Or potentialy it's just that to stress on playing a lower player makes them stronger. Playing someone lower brings stress to the mind because of your thoughts of you needing to win. One scinerio is the stress made them stronger. Another is that maybe then they were in deep focus and beat you. Another, you're out of shape. Low rated players are generaly better because of their determanation to win/draw, or because there is no stress (If you lose, no points lost. If you draw, a few points. If you win, it skyrockets.) However, there is no right answer. There are several answeres to both you're problem and the title.

Surely enough a lot of nonsense put into 40 words, but I'm afraid it is not a new record.

I never had a "beginner" phase in my time on cc. I read a chess book for new players and after 1 month of grinding against bots, I got to 1200 on cc.

Well the reason to why low rated players are so good are probably due to the explosive expansion of the chess playerbase, and the fact that yoyu probably play worse than before.

Because you're even worse than they are

What's the problem ? There is an army of tens of millions of players; For each of us there will always be thousands and thousands of our level to enjoy a game of chess with.

That's what I'm doing. I played some rank but made so many mistakes because of time. It didn't feel like I learned anything. At the moment I only play bots until I can beat them consistently then move to new tier. I plan to play rank again when I can beat the 2000-2100 bots most games. Definitely feels my tactics have improved playing and analyzing bots. They blunder (1 or 2) random moves but also defend well for long periods.

Low rated players are so good because they haven't yet learned all the mistakes and bad habits of higher rated players.

there's a whole bunch of gm yt videos about chess principles, strategy, openings, endgames etc. etc. and u still wonder why r they so powerful while ur rating has dropped!?

use that weapon urself if u wanna revenge ^^

Your are playing like a beginner, at the moment. I've no doubt you have the experience and chess understanding to perform better, but you need to make more of an effort.

You've lost 3 games to checkmate in less than 20 moves (13, 15 and 12 moves respectively). In all of them you ended the game with more than 14 minutes left, in two of them even with more than 15 minutes left. For a 15 minute games that's not supposed to happen. Your rating won't improve if you keep blitzing out moves without thinking.

The other worrying trend are your early resignations. You've resigned 5 games before the sixth moves (2x move 5, 2x move 4 and 1x move 3). Several other games were resigned on or before move 15.

It's possible that all other players are better than you, but I doubt it. From what I can see, it appears they are just trying harder. Once you focus more on winning your games and work for a win every single game, the competition won't be so tough any more. Good luck!

these resignations are due to real world needing to stop playing or just not having time to finish the game so i resign, the early losses im sure is my fault, but ive tried improving my long term strategies and nothings working for me, i just cant think far ahead

I have done some extensive testing on this because so many people bring it up. my lichess rating is 1900-2000 and i have a rapid rating on chess.com of 1650-1700. i made a new account to post this because i had to do some sand bagging to test this out and dont want to get banned.

I cannot prove this and i could be wrong but i fully beleive that most players at 1000-1200 rating are sand baggers. i beleive sand bagging is much more popular then cheating. people get chess rage from losing then lose on purpose untill they start winning more then losing. My average accuracy is around 80% and i am not a beginner i have studied chess for years. i have beat people with 2200+ ratings.

So here are my test results. at 1650-1700 i lose and win 50/50 so i sand bagged down to 1300 played a lot of games still like lose every 3rd game i would check the accuracy and players would get like 87% i would have 84% and the players would compleatly outplay me. and no they are not cheating they are just better then me. i sand bagged down to 1000 and right away i lost 3 games in a row compleatly outplayed people with 85% accuracy one guy had 90% then i would play a few who are much worse and easily win then right after 2 more strong players ect.... and i found i could still only win 2 out of every 3 games. So yes if you feel you are playing much stronger players then yourself under 1500 you are probably right. above 1500 there is very little of this going on, people are more serious and there is only the occasional cheater.

This has been reported many times. Last thread i've seen about it was from a few days ago, of course the naysayers will deny the 900 elo bracket is in shambles due to the huge amount of players who should not be 900 playing in it:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/its-not-adding-up

I've even mentioned several games from a 1 day time span as an example.

People at that rating should be learning to move the pieces, not playing at 20-50 centipawn loss. And they are mixed up with REAL 900 elo players who are learning to move the pieces, so you never know if you are going to be playing a 900 who will be -10 by move 10, or a 900 who will play at 20 centipawn loss for 30 moves and be able to maintain a 0.0 eval all game long, down to and across a pawn endgame.

My suspicion is there a separate pool for "sus" players who play at high accuracy (but obviously can't be labeled as cheaters as they are not cheating), and will be put to play each other during the majority of the pairings. Basically a borderline parallel shadow pool. Because this is not really cheating, these players are not cheating, but they are also not 800-1000 elo.

The last two comments make a lot of sense. I've played at the 1500-1800 level for many, many years. I don't get better, but I don't get much worse either. It's noticeable when a 1200 wins in a very convincing manner.