Are 2000s really not that good?or are they genius?

I played a unrated 3/2 live 960 against a 2000+ rated player, and very early on, I introduced a very clever "brilliant" queen pin(that was a result of a knight sacrifice) that he did not notice somehow. The things I wanted to know in this forum are:

How good really is a 2000 rated player? He fell fro the trap, but then destroyed me at the end because of the increment.

Here's the link to the game:

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/41939418235

?

Unrated games are generally easier than rated games because people often don't take it seriously.

Having said that, you'll see 2000s blunder a fair bit even in rated games. We're not masters.

thx

huh.. they are not "genius" at all..

they do mistakes like everybody others only not so often...

Like @FoxWithNekoEars says, 2000s make plenty of mistakes too. We are all human and have off-days, miscalculate and occasionally go with the wrong plan for the needs of the position; then again, this happens to everyone including titled players...

However, 2000s are good at chess in the sense they are "above average" (this is even true for 1500+ according to chess.com global percentile though). To say "genius" is a bit too generous I think though. Perhaps a certain type of thinking, or mindset, can help with chess, but even chess as a whole feels different from traditional "intelligence." 

I'm honestly not even sure chess really makes people any smarter (might just be a trope and not applicable to real life as much as some might think). Sure, chess might help players refine skills such as determination, discipline or patience etc. but I tend to believe smart people are more likely to try chess (the appeal of a well known strategy game if nothing else) and this explains the correlation. 

I've been over 2000 on chess.com before and I can say from observations that 2000-level players are "good" but not always "genius." That feels much tougher to come by xD

ik they're not genius i just meant very good

2000+ players are as human as anybody else. It's just that they see much more than an intermediate/club player on average.

That is intriguing. Me on the other hand. I cant even win a game of chess against someone rated 500

I've played unrated games a few times and lost some silly games because I simply didn't care since it was unrated, I was just having fun messing around with friends or whatever else.

It's probably because it was unrated, you don't just see this in chess, when I play Apex Legends, CSGO amongst other games if you're playing an unrated game people will play very chill / lack effort, based on my own personal experience and the experience other games have given me of this I would say that he just wasn't trying.

But maybe he just blundered.

No 2000s aren't genius. But at the end of the day, he/she beat you. So he/she justified the rating difference. Rating doesn't say how pretty you win, just how likely it is that you win. Besides it was unrated. Also having the king on b8 is unusual, so it is easy to overlook if you play on autopilot.

If a 2000 and 1300 plays 100 game the 2k will win 99 and the 1,3k will win 1. 

I used this as source for the math

https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html#rating1=2000&rating2=1300

I hope its correct. 

So that would give you an idea how good a 2000 is relative a 1300 rated player. 

I mean... you're kind of asking for this...

Good enough to beat you after blundering a queen and bishop.

Chess960 can be unpredictable, and weird things can happen in unrated, such as my experiences with two 2000s in this thread:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/did-this-guy-take-me-seriously-64438235

Llama's answer is the best though, closely followed by @xbrenbrenx.

we are complete dog doodoo at chess

Sure sure, high rated players are always so humble.

But let's be serious, compared to most people 2000 is extremely high. It takes years of playing and learning.

You're right. But it seems like the higher rating I get, the less I feel that I am good at chess, lol.