1700s in standard play worse than 1700 in blitz

dispite having significantly more time.

why did chess.com overinflate rating points by 400 in standard again?

Some titled player couldn't break 2000 and complained; loudly and with effect.  Erik decided there was a logjam and gave everyone points to spread the ratings out a little.  No I don't buy it either...

i literally don't get it, a 1700 blitz player would make much better moves with much less time than a 1700 standard player who honestly played more like a 1200.

Was a really bad idea. The graph is still off: http://www.chess.com/livechess/players?type=Standard

I don't think that's true, it's just different. A sprinter isn't better than a marathonist; they do completely different things where completely different skills are needed.

It's definitely true. If you compare a 5/5 game with a 15/10, all players being rated 1400, the 5/5 game will be of a better standard, despite the 15/10 having more time.

you seem to complain about this 400 points inflation in standard all the time, and yet, your standard rating is actually 300 points lower than your blitz/bullet.. shouldn't it be the other way around?

You have to be in the top percentile which is over 2000 to be an expert over the board.

even after the ratings boost the top percentile is less than 2000 standard on chess com

Ratings cannot be compared meaningfully between different pools.

it is true that ratings cannot be perfectly compared between different pools, thinking that you cannot find a relationship between the different data set is incorrect.

Of course you can find a relationship.  The problem is when you try to draw meaningful conclusions from those relationships.  Ratings are just not designed to work that way.

Conclusion 1. A 700 rated chess com player will perform poorly over the board.

Conclusion 2. A 2200 blitz player will be able to win local tournaments.

of course I understand that some people cheat, some people have multiple accounts, and some people play while under the influence. All these things make an impact on how accurate conclusions will be. Does not mean that there are not meaningful conclusions.

Well, there are high rated players who suck at blitz, including me (although I'm not a high-rated player by most standards, I am much better at standard than blitz). The rating boost brought my standard rating closer to my U.S.C.F. rating, which is higher than any of my ratings on here except for I guess chess mentor, so I'm fine with it.

You're missing the point, but feel free to continue to do so without me.  Ratings are not designed to work in a way that makes the OP mean anything at all.  Period.

Enjoy the conversation.

Incorrect. period.

I am not missing your obvious point.

JGambit, some people just don't get some things, particularly things to do with math. There's no point bashing your head over it. Sometimes they state stuff that makes absolutely zero sense but "sort of sounds right", you're just going to have to live with it. Trying to explain it will only waste your own time. It's irritating when they think they are right, but there you go, there's nothing we can do. 

wise words,

and Just when I thought I had gotten over being so foolish. (apparently I haven't)

I don't really care for this assumption of skill assessment. The rating is not designed to determine level of play in the most accurate sense, especially in the blitz category. There are many reasons why someone will preform good or bad depending on external factors. To say a 1700 plays like a 1200 is an oxymoron and doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Standard ratings are not inflated. They are similar to OTB ratings.

Blitz ratings are strongly deflated. I will never lose to a 1200 in real life, but I lose (sometimes horribly) to 1200 blitz players on chess.com pretty often.