800 level
The post game estimated rating is not really a good description of rating level. It's an estimate and isn't really accurate.
The vast majority of members are playing fairly and at the lower levels that's especially true. However, if you truly believe another member is using disallowed resources you should report them.
https://support.chess.com/en/articles/8562517-how-do-i-report-someone
My guess is staff think it's an interesting inclusion. I assume there are ongoing tweaks to the code to make it better but I'm not sure there is a good way to do what they're trying to do, at least more accurately.
I wasn't involved in the development or anything related to it. I just know from seeing the results that they're not accurate and should be taken with a grain of salt. The may be directionally accurate, so if you see a rating higher than your current rating you played better than what it would indicate, but it's certainly not as good as it shows a lot of the time.
So yeah, there's some speculation there. That's why I used the words I did 
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say it’s known to be inaccurate to be fair; from my own experience and seeing ratings it gives to my students that I know are completely unachievable.
As to why it’s included i would say it’s the way a lot of apps operate nowadays (eg Duolingo) with some kind of gamification slant to keep people interested (cynically you could also say hooked) and playing, and also staying premium members.
I think 800s can be pretty hard to beat when I get bad lag and lose form then tilt getting dragged back down into the bear pit it's a real struggle to get back up into the 1000s
My guess is staff think it's an interesting inclusion. I assume there are ongoing tweaks to the code to make it better but I'm not sure there is a good way to do what they're trying to do, at least more accurately.
Ok, let me get this straight...you are GUESSING that chess.com's staff thinks that including data that YOU say "is known to be inaccurate" is an "interesting inclusion." Seriously? That is the best you can do?
Isn't it obvious? For the same reason the Duolingo owl tells you you are great. It's a gimmick, a gamification tool to keep users interested and/or make them feel better. The better question is: Why would anyone care about that number or the accuracy percentage, when there already is a rating that tells you exactly how good you are?
Nonsense! - The post game estimated rating is 100% accurate.
Its clear people on this thread suffer from lack of confidence.
The developers added the post game estimator to tell you the truth!
The post game estimator is working as intended!
If the Post - Game estimator says your opponents played as 1,500, you can take it to the bank and cash it. It’s preaching the gospel to you.
Estimator doesn’t lie!
How can person play like 1,600 with such great skill and talent, yet only have a 800 rating?
Consistency issues!
if you play 1 game like 1,600 player and 9 other games like 400 player, your ranking will not be 1,600. Right?
You have to keep playing good over a period of several games.
There might be some players who cheat even at lower ratings, but it's also possible that some of them are improving players who recently lost rating points and are temporarily underrated.
Permainan tengah is middle game, what is that symbol means? (Help me to know that symbol)
@Yorkfire that was not cheatting but some people with great rating is on purpose lose his acc to get easier opponent
Nonsense! - The post game estimated rating is 100% accurate.
Its clear people on this thread suffer from lack of confidence.
The developers added the post game estimator to tell you the truth!
The post game estimator is working as intended!
If the Post - Game estimator says your opponents played as 1,500, you can take it to the bank and cash it. It’s preaching the gospel to you.
Estimator doesn’t lie!
How can person play like 1,600 with such great skill and talent, yet only have a 800 rating?
Consistency issues!
if you play 1 game like 1,600 player and 9 other games like 400 player, your ranking will not be 1,600. Right?
You have to keep playing good over a period of several games.
I dont know. @Martin_Stahl says otherwise. And he's a moderator!!!
Exactly!
Martin is moderator, not the developer!
Martin doesn’t know.
Martin has said he is just like us many times.
Martin is allowed to give his opinion.
Doesn’t mean his opinion is same as the developer.
——————————
Of course, the rating estimator is working as intended!
If the estimator was broken, They would of sent us a public message saying it is broken and they are working on it.
They are not working on it because it is working like a charm!
I never said it was broken. Just that it's not accurate. As far as I know it's working exactly as designed but that doesn't mean it is accurate
Nonsense! - The post game estimated rating is 100% accurate.
Its clear people on this thread suffer from lack of confidence.
The developers added the post game estimator to tell you the truth!
The post game estimator is working as intended!
If the Post - Game estimator says your opponents played as 1,500, you can take it to the bank and cash it. It’s preaching the gospel to you.
Estimator doesn’t lie!
How can person play like 1,600 with such great skill and talent, yet only have a 800 rating?
Consistency issues!
if you play 1 game like 1,600 player and 9 other games like 400 player, your ranking will not be 1,600. Right?
You have to keep playing good over a period of several games.
That's quite a swing from 800 to 1600 though. Generally if you are 200 rating points higher than your opponent your odds of winning are very high. I could play 1600 rated players all day and not beat them but according to the analysis it would be possible for my opponent to beat a 1600 rated player. Not sure if the tool is accurate but it sure feels like its accurate because when I get smashed I know the tool is going to show high rated game play.
Chess.com is on the cutting edge of technology and they broadcast chess world wide.
They wouldn’t add an inaccurate feature to their platform.
They have no reason too!
—————————
Its obvious players on this forum as just lacking confidence.
You just don’t want to accept that your better than you think you are.
The Estimator is trying to tell you the truth and you just don’t want to accept it.
Do people cheat? Nah, only the 0.0000000001% cheat, they're all fair players whose main goal in life is challenging their own limits to improve and become better chess players/human beings. Nobody really cares about rating, or retaliating when they lose to a 1000 players who has 1 inaccuracy and 1 mistake in a game of 43 moves, or interrupting a losing streak of 16 games.
That said, I had a lot of accounts in my life, and usually start as "new to chess". An interesting aspect is the skill level change you witness when you reach the 1000-1100 level. Up to this point you observe many blunders, blatant mistakes and such; but as soon as you get to 1100, players start playing religiously based on opening principles, they foresee all threats and basic plans/tactics you might have. They seem proficient in pins, forks, attacking weaknesses, skewers, and rarely blunder in endgames. The even more interesting thing is that this seems to be less true at a 1500-1600 rating. I have less issues beating a 1500 opponent than a 1100. So, I must assume a lot of relatively strong players just love to buzz around lower ratings just to enjoy winning games? (Obviously I am not even considering the eventuality that some people might be using engine assistance to hang on a rating they think reflects their skills or such).
Hi. I looked at your last 4 losses and did not see anything suspicious. You lost games because you missed free pieces that you could have taken, hung pieces, and lost a piece in a book trap.
my recommendation is that you play slower time controls to give yourself more time to think about your opponents’ threats.
the bots they use do blunders and mistakes, so it s quite impossible to be sure if someone is cheating. but with the sheer number of players doing it, it s obvious now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYIu6s4z3mA