I smash 1400+ players, I got rekt by 1100-1300 players: Smurfs and Sandbaggers

So...this game vs a 1400 player is pretty standard for I easily I mow through these players:

https://www.chess.com/live/game/2979847919

The 1400-1600 players play exactly as I expect them to...and I usually win.

However, there is a great mystery concerning these 1100-1300 players. I either annihilate them in the first 10 moves (and get barely any points) or instead, they play with GM level precision and execution. After analysis it shows that they are INDEED humans players, since they make errors and inaccuracies all over the place. So I know they aren't cheating.

I beleive that they are high level players making ALT accounts to test new openings or straight up troll the bracket. In Starcraft 2 we call this "smurfing", in Rated battlegrounds in World of Warcraft, we call it the same (we get on low rated alt characters). In OTB chess it's called sandbagging.

Seeing sub 1300 players became so frightening that I aborted every game, black or white, when I saw them below 1300. Eventually I was resigning for a few games not realizing that I was being penalized for excessive abortions and took a 25+ point loss, and now I'm forced into this twilight zone bracket again where master level players are on the prowl and straight up making the 1100-1300 bracket unplayable.

I used to be 1700+ in 30 minute chess, so I can see that these players clearly not 1100-1300 noobs.  Analysis of these games show that they were planning their attacks and defenses 10-ply ahead and/or with prior experience in these positions.

I cannot for one believe how easily these players fight the Bird opening (f4), while 1400-1600 players get confused and stomped out by the otherwise inferior opening.

Anyway, the game I linked at the start is demonstrative of how TRUE 1300-1400 players play (really bad) and doesn't at all compare to the level of precision and calculation and cruelness of half of these 1100-1300 players (the other half being so bad it hurts and is boring).

So I'm currently in bracket where I win so easily that it's boring or I lose so hard, that I can't even tell what I did wrong and log off for the day.

Does anyone else notice this?

The only thing I can suggest to fix this is to allow 1100-1300 players with 100+ games played to opt out of playing new accounts.

ty

Be more humble, realize you are rated 1285. You are ignorant when it comes to chess. You do not even know what GM precision is. 

Don't be a chicken and face those people, if they beat you you can learn from the experience

Why is it 1700, 2000, 2500 level players rarely complain about losing to people who are equal to them, but 1000, 1200 and even 1500 players are shocked when someone at their level, or better wins? I think when you play terrible moves and let your queen get taken for no good reason, dont be surprised if you lose, even to someone rated below you.

Yeah, in starcraft and Dota, good players do smurf account mostly due to 

1. Unfamiliar with new release of heroes/maps

2. Away from game for a few months and got rusty to achieve minimum 200 actions per minute(APM).

In chess it is totally different. It is turned based game and both players usually get time to execute one action per turn.

That being said, returning chess players doesnt usually require warming up like action game players ,so doesnt usually require smurf account to practice again.

What is more, once a chess player reached a certain skill, he can execute no matter what age.

For example, although a beginner may not be abke to checkmate K+B+N vK, a 90 years old veteran who could checkmate before , can still do checkmate at his age ( unless he get dementia)

An 1100 player wouldn't stay at 1100 for very long if he was beating 1700s, even a couple of times.  It doesn't make sense that you just happen to run into great players rated at 1100.  It would be easy to check their history and see if they have new accounts or routinely win and lose at that level.  

BS alarm BS alarm BS alarm bwahoooga bwahoooga bwahoooga.  

It does not take GM strength to beat blunders. I would concur that GM strength is not able to be comprehended at this level (or my level either). Ratings aren't everything. Just play.

Ok, so let me tell you a story about myself.

I make a new account here every few months for the last few years (not all at once, I delete old ones then make new ones).

Sometimes I select player level as "new" which starts me out at 800... but this feature didn't always exist, and you just started out at 1200 no matter what.

Ok, so the point is... sometimes I've even struggled against players under 1000. And like you said they aren't cheating. But also when you look at their history, and rating graphs, recent opponents, etc... they're not sandbagging either.

So what the hell?

I think it's a combination of things. First of all, I think we sort of incorrectly assume a player rated far below us is so bad that it doesn't really matter how we play. We'll make some random moves and wait for them to blunder all their pieces. So two things happen:

1) Our expectations are so low, that even crappy play seems like they're playing well.

2) We assume our moves don't matter, so we play lazy stuff, and then wonder why our position is difficult.

Another reason (at least for my new accounts) is they don't know how good I am, so they play with no fear. A lower rated player who has no fear is much more dangerous than someone who is scared of your rating. If they think you're as good as they are, instead of being constantly afraid they'll actually try to punish and attack you.

Ok, last reason... when I review the games... sometimes they're actually pretty bad. Like I said it's sort of a misperception during the game that they're doing well. For example imagine if that game had been between you and someone rated your level, what would you have thought? Often I would think they're playing pretty poorly.

And of course also... players have good and bad games. Sometimes a guy will play the game of his life, or just get lucky and guess very good moves.

So it's hard to know how much they see.

I also play anonymously on other sites (so it's always unrated). Sometimes I can tell right away my opponent is much lower rated than me, but I struggle because I assume the good moves they're making are intentional, or that they're seeing everything I see.

Sometimes you have to know how to pressure your opponent. Go ahead and take small risks that change the character of the position, or force them to calculate. Then suddenly the lucky moves stop, and the bad decisions start coming.

Hey @EdwardKingSolomon

Screw off!!!

LOOOL

 Correct, I've been 1450.

That's how I know these people aren't true 1200 players anymore. It's insane.

I'll often lose games with no blunders or mistakes, just inaccuracy and these people play a near perfect game. This is not 1200 material. I'm playing better chess now than I was when i was 1450.

Do you at least check blunders in your games with a software?

Yes. I use chess.com analysis for most games and stockfish for the more interesting games.

It seems like you're getting stuck in a logical fallacy based on a few bad experiences. E.g. I just got beaten by a lower rated player so the lower rated players must be playing much above their level.

Give a 200 points rating difference in chess, doesn't mean that you are supposed to win every game. You are supposed to win the majority of the games. But it's a simple statistical fact that given enough games, you will at some point face a streak of multiple games, where you are losing to slightly lower rated opponents.

Checking your match history it seems to me, that you're doing just as one would assume a 1300-1350 rated blitz player would against opponents of 1000-1300 blitz rating. It doesn't matter what your rating is on other game modes, if you're playing against opponents who are similar rating to you in given game mode.

Regardless, I don't think that there is that huge of a difference in gameplay by 1100s and 1300s, when they're having a good game. The 1100s can sometimes play really good games, and then completely blunder in another one. Actually, based on my experience, the biggest deciding factor between players of that rating range is consistency. If you just make obvious blunders less often than your opponents at that level, you can increase 100-200 points easily. And still get wrecked by someone 200 points lower rated by having a bad game.