The 1100-1200 range is the absolute worst range to be in.

Same as title.

1100-1200 is essentially elo hell. Much easier to play above 1200 opponents. 

I think it's because a lot of people 1100-1200 can play 1500+ level games fairly easily but a lot of times throw games, rage games, inconsistent games, etc...all while having a pretty good potential skill set. 

I think I can reach 1500 in 30-45 days if I stop making moves very quickly.

Although it's like saying I can be a decent Chemical Engineer if I can think before mixing chemicals..haha

You're 150 points higher than the top of that range... so...

Ok sure, you were rated 1150 at some point in your life, but it just seems like a strange topic to start.

I don't believe in Elo hell for chess by the way... but it's been so long since I've been rated there (long before chess.com existed) that I guess I'm open to hearing arguments.

Oh, I see from your rating graph you were recently 1150.

Well ok mr big shot 1350, but don't talk about how easy those guys are until you're able to keep your rating for a while... for all you know you'll be back to 1150 in no time

Ya, I think most 1100-1200's could be 1500 if they just thought about each move move more. The potential is there.

It depends if I want to keep playing at this level or not. I could easily keep improving and not decrease.

My point is that 1100-1200 is elo hell because the players there are very good, but inconsistent. So you are just playing against a lot of good players who are 50/50 in whether they will play their best or not.

It's a weird elo.

One could argue it's the opposite of elo hell. I.e., you can get an interesting game and have a 50% chance of winning without trying that hard because your opponent also isn't trying that hard.

Interesting. When I was in that range it was because i didn't know a lot of stuff, and, tbh, I wasn't "good" by a long shot because I was playing off of experience and had a lot of conceptual holes.

Against 1 100 - 1 200 rated players in blitz you have 848 wins and 994 losses (which is 46.04%).

Against 1 200 - 1 300 rated players in blitz you have 216 wins and 385 losses (which is 35.94%).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Against 1 100 - 1 200 rated players in rapid you have 338 wins and 397 losses (which is 45.99%).

Against 1 200 - 1 300 rated players in rapid you have 125 wins and 184 losses (which is 40.45%).

I guess you just had some bad games against 1 100 - 1 200 recently, which gave you that impression.

As you can see, you have much better results against lower rated people, so that impression is not correct.

I'm not saying I don't do better against lower elo, I'm jsut saying it's worse to play against 1100-1200 because they are inconsistent, meaning they can play at 1500+ fairly easily, but many of their games they don't care about, rage quit, don't try for a couple days, etc. so their elo always seems lower than what it should be. There are so many players between 1100 and 1200 that do that. So your matches could be easy or very difficult.

But of course I do better against lower elo or I wouldnt be higher than them.

I see your point.

It is a real war zone/Blood bath.

I think its because it is the level where people are just getting the hang of chess.

Kind of like fighting yellow belts.

You know just enough to be dangerous.

I hate my rating

is it?

Everyone is inconsistent in a way. Even a GM will have extremely bad games against 2 000 FIDE rated players.

On a good day, I hang on in a long game against 2000 - 2200 rated player here. I had draws against 2 200+ rated players before, and wins against people around 2 000 level. That doesn't mean I am that level, because on a very bad day I can lose against anyone.

Pretty much everyone can beat someone a couple hundred points higher than themselves, it will just not happen often. With that being said, along with the statistics I provided earlier, I have to say that I disagree.

Those statistics hold mediocre value at best.

Saying I have a 46% winrate against those in between 1100-1200 is meaningless when I'm actually playing better than that range near 1400.

The all time win/loss ratio means much less than recent games.

You are missing the point.

The point of that statistic wasn't to say that you have 46% win rate and that you are worse than them or whatever to that effect. Your win rate is such because you had a recent rating spike, so the win rate wasn't able to go over 50%. If I tried to prove that you are worse than 1 100 - 1 200 rating range, then you would be correct, one can't use all games ever to prove that. But I didn't try to do that.

Because that doesn't have anything to do with this topic.

The point of that statistic is to compare one with the other. The point is to say that your win rate against what you say is elo hell is better than your win rate against 1 200 - 1 300 opponents, about whom you've said it is easier to play against.

Yeah it's 100% trash. When you play an "1100" they are always 1500 or 1600 in rapid so they clearly understand chess at that level. Or the opposite end... you play an "1100" and get crashed and somehow they are 800 in rapid. It's honestly just so dumb.

I still think you should be able to filter opponents who have a +/- 200 ELO lets say among the three time controls.

EveroneIsUnderrstedd is correct about that there's too much diversity in the 1200 range it is the same problem with 800s