How come some 500s rating players are tougher than 7-800s rating players

No offense, but some of the moves you play are questionable. If you want to get above your current rating, don't go 2.Qh5

Actually when I started playing on chess.com, I was surprised by many opponents  by this move and I lost so many games because of not responding well to this move. I don't know why but I like this 2. Qh5 move because it shocks the opponent eventhough most of my opponents manage to escape this immediate threat but I enjoy moving my queen in first moves just to keep shocking my opponent in the hope that he/she will make a blunder , I don't know but I just love this move and purpose is never to get an easy check mate with Qf7 and Bc4 but to target the Rock at h8 but as I said in most of the cases I have to retreat because my opponents smell the threat and make a move that forces me to retreat my queen.

This happens at every level.

If I play at home, rested, and with no distractions (harder than it seems due to a 4 year old at home), I play at 1280-1320 level. Unfortunately, that's the minority of time I can play.

Often, I'm playing between 4-5PM at work when things totally slow down, but I'm tired from the day and I lose all my deep concentration. At that time of day, I play at 1120-1180 level.

For awhile, I'd get really pissed if I was rated around 1280 and then would play a really tough game and lose to a 1120. I blamed myself for losing to such a weak patzer. Then I started plugging my games into engines after I lost for tactical errors, and it was clear that these 1120s that I battled against were playing at 1200+ level, judging from the CPU centipawn loss through the game.

I turn into these 1150s playing at 1280 level when I go from Fri evening 4PM work games to Sunday AM 7AM games - I start crushing everyone at my rating, even if they're playing very well for their level. And then I go to work and start losing points for the rest of the week...

As an aside, if your rating is <1300 on chess.com, you should really be studying 95%, if not 100% tactics, and EASY tactics at that. I spent 6 weeks recently studying tactics that were way too hard for my rating and didn't improve at all. I went back to tactics sets where I could get at least 70% correct right off the bat, and started getting back to form.

At that level tactics decides almost everything. If you are lucky against a 800 player and unlucky against a 500 player your game against the 500 player is harder. 

Easy as that.

Good players don't make bad moves in hopes their opponents fuck up, especially if they know it can be countered and how (you said yourself, with a good defense you have no option but to retreat). Otherwise, after 2.. Nc6 you may as well play 3.Qxh7??  and 'hope' your opponent miss Rxh7 letting you take his rook in the nex turn.

Here is the latest example I once again encountered a player with 510 rating who I find much tougher than 700 or 800 rated players, just have a look at this game of mine. Though I won on time but I think that this 510 rated player is really very good in moves and the reason why he has low rating is that he is slow in time limited games and probably loses most of his games on time.

Decent game. Not without mistakes of course but decent, especially if it's rapid . What particular is surprising you? He made some mistakes. I don't understand why he tried to protect e5 pawn with his queen which was hopeless. He could do it with d7. And i don't understand why you kept your rook on 6th rank where it was target for pawns. And move 18 is absolute mistery for me. Why did you move your rook from that great open file? Are you surprised that he didn't make huge blunders like a hanging piece? Sometimes it happens with everyone. :)

Thanks for your analysis I definitely made some mistakes, this always happens when I am surprised by a player rated lower than me. And yes now I feel that move 18 was indeed stupid by moving my rook from open file to a congested one without any visible threat but then I am 500-800 rating club guy and the guys in this rating club make sometimes such mysterious moves anyway

Usually your goal is to place your rook on the 7th rank where it can sweep out opponent's pawns and prevent your opponent from achieving it. You did opposite thing and from winning position you ended up with losing one.

ever heard of the term: sandbagging?

Yes, white can't recapture. Although h3 is an interesting response.

EDIT: No, it's not really.

If you want to get to my level, you'll have to go through hell. And by hell, I mean bullets, and by bullets, I mean full metal jackets, and by full metal jackets,  I mean studying.

BTW the real reason is they aren't better players, just played better for that game.

If you are talking about blitz games that could be another explanation. I often see profiles of my opponents who are 1300 in standard but 800 in blitz, so you might see people who make good moves but aren't good or serious in their blitz games.

Don't forget that a rating is just a number. Every player is an individual person that may have some type of advantage at any point in time over another person no matter what, it's always a factor that is impossible to factor. Humans are humans that sometimes make mistakes. Also, lower rated players in my mind would be way more likely to have a large improvement or understanding over a very short period of time that could be a developing chapute into a more advanced version of themselves, but it may take 100 games or so for them to completely grasps the idea for example. During those 100 games, their rating is on average going up at a higher degree than what it was before causing them to be on a hotstreak. These are just my thoughts tho. 

I'm assuming the reason would be because there might be some trolls messing around with the lower tier players and ruining their day, which is pretty messed up not going to lie

I am a 1120 rated player in Rapid chess. And 550 in blitz. I'm definitely not the most advanced player, however, I got about over 2200 games of experience on Chess.com. The interesting thing that I've experienced is, for some reason, A 500 blitz opponent to me is just as tough as a 1200 rapid opponent. I find Blitz chess to be a way more challenging league/ball-game than Rapid Chess. No offence to Rapid Chess, but after playing many games at Rapid and Blitz, to me, these two are way different types of ball games. Rapid Chess vs Blitz Chess is kind of like Boxing vs MMA. Sure both games have their unique set of specialities, but at the end of the day, Blitz are just a way more tougher environment to excel. And if you can reach a 1200 rating in Blitz Chess, then you can beat a 2200 rated Rapid player. If you don't believe me, check out this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZhdAPhq7eM the 1st 6 minutes of this video where Gotham Chess were outplayed by a 1000 rated player at Blitz Chess. In my opinion, if you reach a 1000 rating in blitz Chess, then you've earned a lot of respect.

Bro seriously. Watch your video again so you don't embarrass yourself

"Gotfried94:

Bro seriously. Watch your video again so you don't embarrass yourself"

Dude, why do you say that?

I mean, I understand where you coming from. The other few games he played after the 1st game vs those 1000's Blitzers, he was in control as he pointed out their mistakes, helped them out etc.