I feel like a chess impostor

Let me give you a bit of background: I started 2 years ago with a Rapid rating of 1100. Now I am near 1800.

Here are my problems:

I. At least 25% of the games I win on stupid blunders made by my opponents. Like really, really stupid. I am lost on all counts then the guy blunders a rook or the queen. Then ... I win.

That to me... feels like gambling. What if I run out of luck and ppl will not blunder like that? Then I am toast.

Here it is, a much higher rated guy blunders his queen


This guy, a bit lower rated than me almost destroyed me, but he failed to see a clear mate in 3:


and I could really go on with examples as above.

If I win 25% of the games on sheer luck, then my rate will be much lower when my luck goes out the window. And "chess" and "luck" shouldn't even be in the same sentence.

II. 2 years ago, playing an 1800 player was like playing a God. Would beat me each time, no sweat.

So... how the heck did I reached here in 2 years? It seems unreal. And seeing how I just win on luck so many times, maybe it is unreal.

III. I tend to struggle against lower rated players. For that reason, I am much more relaxed playing an 1800 than playing somebody at 1300.

I have no idea why that happens - it makes no sense to me.

What is your experience regarding the above? Do you also win a lot based on luck? Do you also struggle against lower rated players but tend to do better with higher rated ones?

1800 on here isn't exactly a GM; maybe you're not an "impostor" after all. :)

Ohh... no, that was exactly my point. I think I am more like 1400. But a very lucky 1400!

Huh how do you see ur stats?

If your rating is 1800 with rating deviation of 45,00, then you are significantly better than me, and I usually find 20-40 %, at a best nearly 60 % best moves recommended by Stockfish 14+ and I feel like I understand quite a lot about chess. But it's still hard to me reach even 1700. And while I reached 1600 just watching my 2000 rated friend's games, I don't feel myself impostor.

@razm said in #1:
> III. I tend to struggle against lower rated players. For that reason, I am much more relaxed playing an 1800 than playing somebody at 1300.

This is same to me. It must to be psychological effect, both to me and to my opponent.

@razm said in #1:
> This guy, a bit lower rated than me almost destroyed me, but he failed to see a clear mate in 3:
If someone doesn't know simple mating patterns then they will miss lots of easy wins and therefore are more easily winnable. And same goes to the "luck", which in fact is usually either mouseslip or just lack of concentration and therefore deserve to lose in order to learn to avoid them in future.

@razm Im only 1700 ish on here but i too am seemingly better at playing higher rated players than lower and i think its because the higher rated players dont tend to confuse the given position with as many mistakes , blunders etc putting pawns all over the place, so its sometimes easier to read the board ironically.And i for one am not good enough at Chess to necessarily realise they blundered etc and punish them for it.
And im not saying that higher rated players dont and or cant confuse the position intentionally with various moves at all by the way, just not as accidentally as lower rated players sometimes do, thus sometimes making it tricky for higher rated players to get the win on occasion.
So basically i need to up my game and understand the positions better.

@razm And that was exactly my point. 1800s around here will undoubtedly overlook a few mates in 3...

Rapid, especially 10 min (which is almost blitz) means there will be blunders on this level and possibly chaotic endgames in time trouble.

There is a huge difference in tactics and endgames between 1300 and 1800. If he wins being 500 points down it means something went very, very badly, but more likely he was a computer cheater or sandbagger. Play him again. If you again get positions where he has everything defended and keeps you under pressure, or you magically end in a mating net, it is obvious that he was cheating. It is more like a 2000 performance.

The fast progress is mostly the result of liches rating inflation.

luck and opportunism are stats you can compare vs player rating and other variables in your chess insights.

people make the weirdest mistakes. 23xx hung M3 and i resigned coz i either had a wrong position from previous calculation in my head or thought the knight jumps over a pawn horizontally or something and didnt see the easiest defending move that comes with check: