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

my high is 1500 and im stuck in 1200 i tilt like crazy at this range too because i sincerely believe i should be winning easily. Thats the danger, believing youll win effortlessly

Then you tilt

tilt happens when you think "I should win against these bad players easily", and then forgetting that you didn't get to your current rating due to playing mindlessly but rather due to actually trying hard every game.

not everyone who is X rating at blitz plays at X rating in rapid.

100 percent

i'm one of the players that makes elo 1100-1200 a hell from analyser quite often my games ae raated within range 1600-1800 and then during a next game i give my queen for nothing because i'ma blind mole ... 
I guess keeping focussed is the key, and loads of people cannot stay focussed for a prolonged time unless they practice it.

Don't focus on game review it rates elo sometimes based off of other people's elo do if a 1600 plays the same type of game they could get scored lower or higher than a 1200 would

so if i play against 1100 guy and my review elo game evaluation shows 1600, is it really lower tahn 1600, or i misunderstood you?

Depends in complicated positions they score lower in easier positions you will score higher

So yes and no

in chess there is never an easy answer
thanks!

Range is so bad, my first bottleneck ELO came 1100-1200 and took me 4 months

i dont even care about my rating anymore im playing poker on steam now

more like every rating U1200 because it is hard in the 600s too. the 600s are way too diverse, some know how to move pieces but don't know how to castle, some should be in 1000, some don't even know basic rules, and many are just sandbaggers

Not sure what the point of this thread even is.

I have a few people 1100-1300 on my list, and I've played them a few times. They end up getting into passive positions with no counterplay, making extremely weakening moves, or leaving pawns or pieces improperly protected, as well as exchanging pieces when they have a fatal weakness (like a backward pawn on c7 which can't be defended because they have a second weak pawn elsewhere). Some people end up playing decent moves for awhile, then they make one very careless move which completely destroys their position.

Main issue I've seen is:

1) they keep walking into tactical threats or traps.

2) they fail to identify the weakness or flaws of their move, only looking at trying to attack something (this probably happens the most).

3) extreme difficulty understanding different pawn structures and correct plans with pieces revolving around them.

nah

I don't know how you're measuring their playing level. If you're going by what the computer estimates at the end - that thing isn't accurate, I often see it estimate me / my opponent both 300-500 points higher than we are in some games, other times 300-500 lower for both of us... I think that'll happen regardless of your elo, it's just some variability in the types of positions you're playing and the tool itself. Your opponents are rated 1100-1200, not 1500. They will win something like... 10% of the time against a 1500.

300-400 rating points is a big difference in chess. It often takes a while to jump up a tier, and your play will need to improve significantly.

The goal should be to request to chess.com some kind of control to play players that are actually in say a +/- 100 or 200 ELO range across rapid and blitz. How many times do you all lose in blitz to an "1100" and then see they are actually 1500 or 1600 rapid... of course we will lose.

...Or even dumber you lose to an "1100" and they are something absurd like 700 or 800 in rapid which is even more suspicious.