Why is everyone low rated so ridiculously good?

The issue with saying Levi sucks is that he occasionally beats people like hans I bet a good chunk of gms are scared even if he's worse

It is all relative, unless you are world beater like Carlsen or Kasparov. And even they cant beat the computers.

Of course, Levy is a very very strong player in my opinion. I consider 2000 on chess.com to be "strong".

What would you say is a good rating for rapid?

I think a lot of it is with people's playing style. Like I mean how I'm 1400-1500 rated but I could play someone who could be 500 points lower rated than me and have a somewhat hard time winning because they know all the basic things and they can typically defend decently for some time. The rating I would say is how slowly you outperform your opponent, so if you're going all in for tactic battles, you may just have a hard time.

relatable

For rapid, about 200-300 points higher. Maybe 1800 or 1900 on rapid is a good, club level player. Towards 2100-2200 is a very good club level player. Just my rough estimate.

Below the 1800 rating on Rapid (not Blitz), I often face players who fall for gambits that an experienced player would not. For example, the old Benoni trap. I must have won 100-200 games with that trap (although that is more a measure of the huge number of games I have played on here over the years.)

Alright, am I good player, I’m around 1600 for blitz and around 1800 for rapid.

I have only been playing for 1.5 years

Yeah, you are doing better than me after 2 years!

I started at around 1300 and went up by about 100 points every year. Slow learner, lol.

I got stuck at around 1700-1800 level for a while. In the last 2 years I studied openings and reached 2100.

Blitz, I still cant get above 1900. It takes a lot of natural skill (logic, judgement, calculation) and speed of thought to do well at Blitz. I think it suits younger players and I am now 44

I would focus on positional chess and getting a good endgame and learning how to swindle learning to spot tactics that's probably the most important thing that helped was me spotting 1900-200s blunders and if they don't blunder try to force it learning tactics prob most important (not threw puzzles btw) those are kinda useless

I agree, the puzzles are not very helpful.

But how then do you learn tactics?

My method: learn openings (not every single line by line of course, that would be impossible) and if you see a move by your opponent that looks like it is a bit "untidy" then there very well may be a chance of some kind of winning tactic- and there often is.

Gambits can also trick your opponent into foolish decisions, but I know a lot of people at higher levels are wise to them and just end up getting a free pawn and winning

Honestly I just ignored openings and played whatever opening I felt like playing based off whatever YouTube video showed up

I started out at 600

I'm low rated daily . . . 1261 . . .

But I suck . . .

I keep repeating my errors . . . Oh well! . . .

Well I am already I old player in chess I would say and I think I am a little higher than intermediate but I would really like to know my raiting because it just says that I'm 700 but I know that I am like a 1400 or even a little bit higher so I would like to know my real raiting to know how much I've improved but it just says 700

Well, im 450 elo and im bad

No you are great player 99%+ players are opressed and Gatekept by AI chess matrix

🙄

I used to play on chess.com when I was new to chess but then I started playing on lichess and improved a lot and i came back to chess.com and my rating is super low my friend his rating is 1000 and I can easily beat him so it there anything I can do to change my rating