why are the 1500's in this site so good ?

I flutuate between 1480 and 1560 in this site and when I start to face the 1550 or higher the level rises rapidly.

They follow well known opening lines, rarely make tatical mistakes and are good in positional play.

I think Chess. com actively only scans the games of people over 2000 for computer usage.

A LOT!!! of players on this site use computers. 

Keep a cell phone close by and make moves on the computer or vice versa. 

Wish there was a way to stop all cheaters in the middle of a game but it's only possible after scanning several of their games.  

I bet of the 20 million plus members on this site a lot of those are people with several identities and people who start one id after another after being blocked.

I'm personally finding it difficult to break the 1500 rating barrier.

I play mostly Online Chess, am rated about 1600, and have had a number of opponent's accounts closed for fair play reasons without me reporting them.  I don't see as many accusations of cheating amongst higher-rated players, which makes me think it is not very prevalent, and that lower-rated players are more likely to explain away superior play as cheating.

That said, I think the problem you're having with 1550+ players may just be that you perceive them to be better.  Dan Heisman likes to say that "You have to lose your fear of a rating before you can become that rating."  Try going over some of your games against 1550s and against 1450s with a computer, and you may find that they aren't that different in terms of number and magnitude of mistakes; I would guess the difference lies more in your own play for psychological reasons.

Finally, I see your average opponent rating in rapid for the past 3 months is 1519.  I suspect maybe you see the 1550s as being good because you do not play many players above that.  Try playing players who are out of your "comfort zone" -- maybe even a master in simul -- and either, you will start to learn that while 1550s are good, they are nowhere near 1800s and masters, or you will discover that you are better than you thought, and 1550s aren't that good!

mmmm well I dont think the 1500s  are very good players, they have decent levels, and they start knowing some openings, they have some knowledge on tactics but I believe his positional play its really bad I would say is the start of having an intermediate level at chess, yes, from 1400 you are already intermediate at chess, but if a 1400 face a 2100 probably we would think, this guy can see everything, he doesn't miss a thing, and if a 2100 face a 2700 probably he will think the same, chess is a long path

I'm an odd duck. I stopped playing in the 70s with a USCF rating in the 1700s. I started playing again a few years ago, here and other places. I had been used to blowing away 1500 players, but I found 1500 players on chess.com more difficult than I remembered.

I wasn't sure if I had lost a lot of ground or 1500 players had improved or chess.com ratings were depressed compared to USCF ratings. My games were in the Slow Chess League and I never had the impression those folks were cheating.

Not long after chess.com announced they were going rejigger the ratings higher. I don't know where things stand now.

totally makes sense...

thank you for your responses

if you're talking about 15/10 time control, it's because 2/5ths maybe 3/5th of players use engines; if you're talking 3/0 increment only a tenth players use an engine maybe; bullet nobody does; you'll reach 1600 bullet first, then maybe in daily, since the pay off to cheat takes so long only 15% use engines in daily.  Concur with the Heisman fear of ratings idea; that's a good one.  1600 seems to be a real milestone; in fact, it is Class B (1600-1800).  The 1550s are making mistakes, you probably are just in their level, and don't see them just as they don't know they are making them; mutual board blindness.  Hone up on tactics and you'll be 1700 quickly.

I got 1900 in blitz and bullet while completely drunk, so I wouldn't know.

Maybe there are sites out there that let beginners who play like total morons, blundering pieces on every move, get to 1500. Maybe playing people like that gave you a false impression.

But seriously, when I make a new account and start from a low rating, I'm impressed by how even very low rated players seem to be not completely terrible here. You'll have players under 1000 following opening principals and not blundering pieces all the time.

Regardless of rating. the general standard of player here seems to be higher than some other places.

Nope, you're just terrible. Maybe you beat all your friends who don't even know about pawn promotion and en passant, but go to an OTB tournament and you'll learn your place

I know you are stating those numbers based on your general feelings and not based on any real data, but you should know just how off they are when compared to the actual numbers associated with reality. If you are saying about half of the rapid playing pool is engine play then the fact that I have lost only 40 percent of my rapid games makes no sense at all unless I and everyone else with a win percentage that isn't in the toilet is also using an engine. I should have lost 50% to people playing with assistance and 40% of the remaining half, which is 20% of the whole, to the people who beat me fairly. That would mean I would lose 70% of my games unless most people use engines but somehow do it in a way that allows them to lose their games anyways so that it makes hardly any difference in their overall wins and losses. Compare that to the fact that I lose about 44.4% of my blitz games and then it makes even less sense. Is that because I am using an engine in rapid but I can't use a program as much in blitz so I lose more games? But then why does it seem that I am better at blitz (my actual rating as well as my global percentile among all users are both higher)? The fact is that most people play games when they have some free time and are trying to relax or are bored and want something to do. If you think everyone is getting online to inflate their scores so that they can brag about their chess.com rating then you are delusional, and when people like you keep saying it all you are doing is badmouthing this website and the people who like to play on it. If you really believe that nonsense then actually back it up and analyze about 10 of the most recent rapid games I or someone else played and see how many people you have to search through before you see a person with games against a bunch of suspect players.

Also consider the curves for the ratings change depending on the time control.  950 is the median rating for blitz and bullet, whereas 1150 is median for rapid and daily.  Considering rapid and daily also have smaller rating pools, comparing ratings between the time categories is difficult and misleading.

I just recently broke the 1500 barrier. It seems to me that the higher rated opponents know how to capitalize on very small advantages. Whether it be positional, a pawn up, or even a better king position in the end game, the advantage can be decisive for the higher rated player. I think 1500s are getting good ideas on how to make strategize/capitalize, but they are just not as refined yet. 

*Disclaimer*

I know I am not that good everyone so please do not berate me for having a comparatively low rating. 

I am not very sure. I know when I started playing here years ago, back in 2012, the standard was very low. I could even play on the app (using my fingers) and still win most of the time against all these 1500s that you speak so highly of. But in the past few years since maybe 2015....the standard has gone up and the 1500s are stronger now. Whether they are cheating or not, especially in the opening phase....that I don't know. You can see many older players (who played here from 10 years ago) used to have much higher tactics ratings or blitz ratings in the past, and if they are around....why can't they get those ratings again?

I was close to 1600 (1596), lost a lot of points by playing too many Daily games,  began to play few Daily games and came to 1594, lost some games against strong players and I am trying again to pass 1600.

Of course, the better you are the better are your opponents. 

I think there are stages of play and not necessarily because of using computers. I have seen 1300 players on chess.com and over the board players get into a position where they are very comfortable or have just studied and do really well, even against players 300-500 points higher in rating.  And blunders happen to all players, just less frequently as their rating gets higher. The thing about the 1500-1600 rated players is that they usually have played a lot and know many tricks and positions and generally don't make obvious blunders that a lower rated player can take advantage of easily. The 1500-1600 rated players have trouble advancing because they lack the skill to see more complex tactics and implement longer range plans effectively. Often I play a lower rated player and they make a terrific move, maybe even given by a computer, but I am able to win because they don't know how to turn a great move into a win. Often in published games they get to where the really good move is made and ask you to find it. Some people with even quite low ratings find these, but give them the position after they make the great positional or strategic move and see if they can beat an equal or better rated opponent over the board with an understanding of the entire situation and the outcome of the game is still very much in doubt. One last thing. Look statistically among all chess players at where a 1599 rated player is in comparison with their fellow players. It is in the top 10 % of all the players. Now look at where the 1399 and 1499 players fall among all players. See my point?

Hello! How are you?