This is an overhyped chess game by two low-rated YouTuber chess players, but apparently, there was a $10,000 wager on the line, with reportedly the money going to charity. I think that the comments are instructive, although he sometimes praises mediocre moves. There were some good moves in this game, but also some not-so-good.
I just realized that there is a second game in the video. The second game is simpler than the first. The lower-rated player just fell apart quickly. The higher-rated 1100 player seems a little better than his rating.
P.S. I remember a time, say before the year 1990 when any chess rating below 1200 was considered meaningless. I heard people ask, "How can you be any worse than terrible?" You could have a good-sized tournament with nobody rated below 1200 participating, which was usually the case. However, since about 1990, scholastic chess rose to such prominence, where the average kid might be rated 800, so the low ratings really did start to mean something. Also, with the boom of Internet Chess over the last year, I know some adults who have 800 and 900 online ratings. (Whereas some people might be intimidated playing others online, it is possible to go onto chess.com, get a rating, and then use the settings where you only play people close to your rating.)