I keep losing constantly now...

Ofc., you can find different types of players (opponents) according to the game clock and, also, game dynamic can be -quite- different with different clock length(s).

I looked at your profile, and saw 2 games. Both of which you blundered your queen in under 4 moves.

1st. Don’t play bullet chess if you’re genuinely trying to improve. Play Rapid.

2nd. Play actual openings, don’t take your queen out early.

3rd. (This will be blunt, so pls understand) Don’t make excuses, your opponents aren’t playing impressively, you are genuinely making easy moves to capitalize on. The high accuracy of your opponents is due to your frankly obvious mistakes and short games.

4th. STUDY! How can you expect to win a game as complex as chess if you don’t know what you’re doing?

https://www.chess.com/lessons/opening-principles/phases-of-the-game

https://www.chess.com/lessons/opening-principles/control-the-center

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQHX6ViZmPsWiYSFAyS0a3Q

This should be helpful. Also remember to take breaks, Chess can strain your brain and stress only makes that worse. Good Luck in the future!

I am just so bad at chess. I keep losing every game.

I become annoyed after a while. I analyze games but it is so different when I play with other eople online. I keep blundering. Any tips, guys?

For everyone struggling with losing, there two videos of mine may help. Both are a bit longer than most videos, but are well worth your time investment to watch because it can easily save you way more time in the long-term:

lol See? Losing a lot is not related to rating; even titled players experience the same ups and downs in rating. I interpreted your comment as a joke (even if true) @Witty_Alien but no need for the frowning emoji; losing shouldn't have to impact how you feel about your progress and past accomplishments: https://www.chess.com/blog/KeSetoKaiba/chess-motivation-through-purpose

The best player in the world doesn't even do this lol. Look, if you suck at chess, you probably spent your time more productively anyway so don't feel too bad. You'll never stop sucking, just need to accept it. Even if you get to a 2000 rating, you'll be frustrated that you can't get to 2100.

Stop blundering. If you really are just being careless and you know this, then stop being careless. You can gain all the knowledge of chess to be a GM but you won't be one if you drop pieces and hang mate in every game.

When you lose a game, try to understand why. Is it really because you blundered? Losing to a tactic isn't always a blunder. A blunder is a stupid or careless mistake, meaning it is avoidable if you just stop being careless. You can't very well avoid a tactic you've never seen before, and it doesn't make you stupid or careless to lose in such a way. It also isn't stupid or careless if you slowly get twisted into a position where you can't avoid losing any longer, it just means you didn't understand the position.

It looks like your rating rose quite a bit at first. Naturally, you now are against better people, who might be better than you are.

If you haven't looked into it, you have almost no idea how good people can be at this game. LIke--play ten games at once without seeing any of the boards, just remembering all of it--this is a thing.

So...you always will rise until you are losing. Unless you are the very best in the world.

Yeah, I kinda get it now. I think my problem is that when I analyse the games that I lose, I fail to understand in depth as to why I made the move which makes other times I play more at risk with blunders and mistakes. I feel like it is also the time that stresses me while also if I don't know any move to make, I just waste time thinking especially in rapid games.

there could be a lot to that. Like who are you losing to?
Most moves in most games are not tactical.
Sometimes - those are called 'positional' moves. Or positional situations.
You're not taking something - you're not checking - you're not threatening to take something or win something next move with your move now - plus you're not responding to 'tactics' by your opponent because he hasn't made a tactical move just then. Plus it isn't a tactical situation at the time.
But you still have to move.

Although:
'Always assume there's tactics in a position until you've become sure there's not'
'When you know there's tactics - you've still got to find all the tactics'
To evaluate tactics properly and efficiently - then its logical to start with the two Kings and their situations. Then the Queens rooks bishops knights and finish with the pawns - the least tactical piece but they can still be very tactical. Saves an enormous amount of time starting with the most important or powerful pieces and working down.
Both with the position in front of you and on lookahead too.

Those Observations can then blend into the next step.
Calculations. Which is different.
A player very booked on the opening and the endgame is matched with a tactician who doesn't Book much or not at all.
The tactician has the advantage.

Tips

How come at times low-rated players play so well that you can't believe this guy made such an intelligent move. Is it some tricks

Some players are coming up.
When they start at chess.com - they might not have a rating that reflects their strength.
Or may have been having a bad day on the day their provisional and early ratings were developed.

Regarding how one looks at the chessboard (or stares at it) to prepare and make their move (or while its the opponent's move)
I discovered a video about the so-called 'Fischer principle' which seems to have considerable merit in how to look at a position.
If there's a piece or pawn of your opponent's - in your half of the board ... then concentrate on that piece or pawn.
You may have to neutralize it or counter it somehow.
As priority.

This is a useful idea for multiple reasons.
And it can be expanded ... if there is no such piece or pawn - or that matter has been or is being dealt with - then look at your opponent's pieces and pawns to see what squares in your half of the board that they control or are hitting at and what pieces and pawns of your's they are hitting at.

A big point about this Fischer idea is that you're looking at your opponent's pieces first.
Prioritizing.
And his idea suggests Which pieces to look at first.
Point: if one prioritizes one's own pieces first and 'what they can do' then try 'not good' as to the results that habit could lead to. Or does lead to.
Point: one will not improve on observing positions without getting a good enough way to begin doing so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h4KLNqvLWw

It was for Fischer.
But not for everybody.

Not everybody can be WC.

not even him.
Only that one time he was.

The rest of the time he wasn't. happens to

'em all, even Ding in due course.