Im confused, is 1800~1950 players better 1950~2050?

About talent:

I don't think it's correct to state that GM's are born in the womb. As funny as that is.. The reason why is I have seen proof that GM's are created with work. The average GM is actually the product of 100% hard work. And Magical talent isn't really a thing. There is aptitude. And the ability to understand certain things better, but that is the determining factor of whether or not you will make the top 100 players in the world or not. If you average out the aptitude factor throughout everyone, the average person with proper study and practical application should be able to reach GM.

Note: I said proper study and practical application.. I didn't say that the average person should be able to do so.. I added the qualifier.

With that said. I was always told when I first started that with my age and my current rating at the time. I would never hope to make expert. Well I took that as a challenge. And while I was slower than most people I did make an experts rating recently in USCF. Where most people claim is the only real system if you don't do FIDE often and you live in the US. When I started I was 25, and my life long rating from the age of 12 was under 1000. So I went to my first tournament around 23-24, and I got introduced to my first expert there. I played in the Oregon class championships. I forget what his name was and he was like a special guest analyzer or someone popular in that area or something. He was the topic of conversation with my friends back home when they stated I would never make his level. Now I kind of wish I could just go back to that chess club and tell them what for. Or at least what two!

that is other question, but...

talent exists, of course, but it is more related to speed than quality or quantity. Someone with more talent can learn the 'A' information faster and can apply 'A' information faster, but 'A' information is not beyond the reach of other people. In addition, someone less talented can learn better information and / or learn more information. A few players unite talent + amount of information + quality of information, but this is rare and many talented players are more likely to have little information or information without quality, while many untalented players can compensate it with quantity and / or quality.

Some phenomena appear here, Anand is more talented than Kasparov, for example! The way to recognize talent is by speed, in which Anand, Carlsen, Capablanca, among others had!

We must accept one thing: chess requires a mental effort that not everyone is prepared. When one is not prepared one tends to create barriers and seek shortcuts. Talented players have this mental energy. This is the same in physical sports where stronger, faster, agile (natural abilities!) Players have an advantage. But just as someone can train your muscles and learn to jump higher, be more agile, etc., it is also possible to train our calculation skills, concentration power, imagination, etc. etc..

Well at least you admit you can train to compete with a "Talent". Most people just use it as an excuse to fail.

Servers tend to also have "pools". Every few hundred points there seems to be a rating pool. The people within the pool are generally trapped playing against each other. So let's say there is a rating pool between 1700 and 1900. As you struggle to reach the top of it, the players become stronger and stronger. Let's say you finally overcome it and move up to say, 1950. It is possible you moved into a new rating pool, and you will know this because the players in your 1950 rating range suddenly seem weaker than the 1850s.

I see some masters here stuck in the 1800 bullet range. Sure, they just might not be good online blitz players. But 100-200 points above them are players clearly weaker.

There are players rated 2900 here that may lose relatively frequently to someone 2200, IF they ever played them. But they are in a rating pool, and typically would not.

Some have proposed that the world's elite FIDE players are also in an OTB rating pool. This is evidenced when they play in swisses or Olympiads and lose points.

I have no solution to this. It's just an observation and a part of the chess world we inhabit.

Yep 1700-1850 are better than 1950-2050 who are better than 2150-2250 and so on.

Two ideas for explanation; both boil down to an unbalanced style.

1) Your skills are unbalanced in general and fit better against stronger opponents.
E.g. if you are good at defending, but comparatively weak in converting endgame advantages, you might hold many (worse) positions against stronger opps, but fail to win good positions against weaker. Or maybe, if you know openings very well: stronger opponents will more often play main variations (unproven assumption :) ), thus moving on "your area", while weaker opps avoid cutting edge theory, depriving you of this advantage.

2) You play slightly too cautious in general. Using supersolid opening variations?
May result in decent results against stronger opps (esp. when they try too hard...); against weaker opps it would be vice versa, then you are the one who is not satisfied with draw.

Only guesses...a found answer would require a deeper analyse of your games...

Quickly browsed some of your games...against 2000-2100 opponent lichess shows ~90 games where you made ~35 points: this is statistically more or less exactly the expected result according to your rating!?
No mysteries here, it seems :)

From experience I usually get close to 2000 in blitz then just seem to lose games and get down into the 1800's then climb back up... I consider myself a very strong 1800 player.. there have been games when someone higher rated than me makes a lot of blunders and i win easily... and then play an 1800 who doesn't blunder or gets me in a position where i have to be accurate and burns my clock down... but i usually just think to myself that i really just suck at chess in general or try ideas that don't really work out down the road usually to a combination or sometimes a missed tactic ... who knows but there are some strong 1800's out there