Why are low rated players so good?!

There should be a system to regulate sand bagging and a person should be flagged if he loses more then say 15 games in a row, anyone that denys sandbagging just has something to hide because it is so obvious and it is getting worse quite fast

I fully agree with this comment: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/for-beginners/why-are-low-rated-players-so-good#comment-111655068

I used to be around 1500 rapid with another account perhaps 2 years ago with 75% winrate. I haven't stopped playing since but switched to Lichess. I just renabled an older account on chess.com and I'm sitting at 1230 elo and having just a little over 50% winrate. On lichess I'm 1800 bullet and 1600 blitz. It definitely feels like the ~1200 range is much stronger than it should/used to be. Doesn't mean much, but I'm also 2800 in puzzles and beat all master bots.

at what games are you playing? 2/3/5 10/15 makes a big difference i think -- the lower times, players for me, anyways tend to more even but when you get to 30 min and up that's were I see the problem --why I am not sure, after 1200 I see a big difference of play, one player is great one player is really bad one blunders a lot the other no blunders maybe odd mistake, so really not sure how they can solve this ?

پرسیده چرا بازیکنان رتبه پايين اینقدر خوب اند ؟ پاسخ روشن است. :چون تو انتظار داری خیلی بد باشند .

ایندفعه وقتی با اونها روبرو شدی آنها را دست کم نگیر وبا تمام قدرت بازی انجام بده تا میزان اشتباه ها را ببینی 😊

Because low rated pools are filled with cheaters, sandbaggers, and hackers. It's harder to play in the 400 range than at 2000

As much as they try to deny it, this is not only very true, but it's also exactly why I jumped ship.

I've had quite a few people tell me my rating should be way higher than it is. I don't like to believe that at all, but when it's more than just one or two people, that's definitely something. And after seeing a few videos of this website's problem from an actually unbiased perspective, I've come to the conclusion that the whole website is the problem.

Same case here. My rating at 10min shows ~500-600. When I play with bots I'm able to win ~1200-1300. When I do a review after game it usually shows that my rating based on that game was ~1100-1300 and my oponent was similar. Why in that case I stuck there? Why are ppl I'm playing with also with such a low rating? I don't get it.

Bot ratings are off. Bots are usually overrated, sometimes very overrated, but even that isn't always true. Bot ratings are not ratings at all. They don't go up and down as the bot wins or loses. That "bot rating" is just a number written there. It can be anything, we've seen examples of "1" or even "?".

The rating estimate at the end of the game is equally bad. It's all over the place, and more often than not it's just a meaningless number.

because once in a while I'm brilliant at chess. Even though I'm 87 years old.

Most of the time I suck . .

So in other words, it's not players it's the service itself that makes rating assessments that make no sense?

bro hats the EXACT thing with me, apart i cant beat 1300 bots

So in other words, it's not players it's the service itself that makes rating assessments that make no sense?

Yes. The "game rating" algorithm is based on your actual rating and it adjusts it for accuracy, yet everyone gets higher ratings on average. The algorithm was designed that way. Chesscom are also not unaware that 600 rated players en masse beat their "1000 rated" bots pretty easily. Again, they want it this way.

It's a problem for chesscom that trying to bump rating up is what gets people addicted to chess, but being low rated is also discouraging. So they provide some ways that people can convince themselves that they're not ACTUALLY that low rated, not REALLY. "Game ratings" were kind of a genius move in this regard, I hope they gave the guy who invented that a raise.