Why do extremely weak or unrated players take the game overly seriously?

Well, you say that, but I know that although my rating in chess is very low, it just happens that I lose games, because I know for sure that I am extremely and varientingly close to beating chess grandmasters, and that I am already better at chess than most of you people typing in this elicit forum. Since I have played the diagrammatically over-excessive enigmatic board game that is chess, I have acquired such knowledge that may be required for having extremified knowledge of the game, making me an extremely and exponentially excellent chess player, with much chess skill to back it although my chess rating is low due to unexpected bisectorial procedures that have since made my efforts to prove myself inadequate too the utilitarianism that is the hierarchy of lichess [rating]. I have the skill, knowledge, and passion to defeat chess grandmasters, but I simply cannot release such intelligence in the game. Due to many external but oblique factors during my games against high rating players, I have been unable to achieve the advent that is deemed captcha.

@PoolOfLiver
@ iovlas

same @chesslegendmaster i think everyone does, just not everybody thinks like that. its thought, not skill

@PinkTaco You make a good point, which tells me that the way I phrased my statement was not the best. They don't only take the game seriously. I do that sometimes, too. But they take THEMSELVES extreeeeeemely seriously. Like they are some brilliant analyst doing deep, exhausting, ground-breaking work in preparation for a World Championship match.

@PoolOfLiver Is this really a problem? Can you be a bit more specific (Without naming the person)?

although i agree 100% they may try to help themselves getting better

what is this gatekeeping garbage

@Dutch_Player Not a problem per se, just a bit ridiculous, in my opinion. It tells me they think of their skill level much higher than they realistically should, and they think that they need to share their deep, brilliant insights with the rest of the world. Again, laughable and annoying, to me, personally. Getting more specific would be near impossible without naming someone, it's not one person, but a handful of people I've seen posting here in the forums and creating studies. I do have their names in mind, but it goes without saying that I would never name them publicly, for many different reasons.

would it be like me sharing this game lichess.org/vxWL6dGw/white#9 and calling it glorious and unreachable genius?
(i know it is not its an example)

This is just asking like;
Why do extremely weak clubs participating World Cup, European Cup, Champions League, NBA etc. with a big tenacity and desire;
they should accept their knickknack-wall flower role; they will eliminate in the first tour with 8-0 and 5-0 score...
why their players are playing all 90 minutes to the end completely,
why they all protest against bad referee decisions or red cards even they are 5-0 down in score...
why their coaches beat himself up at the side, giving tactics, shouting here and there....

Lol.
% 80 of everything is mediocre, average, undistinguished.

You are the one who has to know which source you will pay regard to, which article you will read, which people you will mind.
Most of the time it is not us but you.

@PoolOfLiver People can make claims like that, because they all have a Stockfish