I'm tired of people bragging about having '' high '' correspondence chess ratings, yet see thier blitz rating be a measily 1200. Having a 1800+ bullet/blitz rating is more respectable than being a 2000 in Correspondence chess
I'm rating 1850 uscf rating in chess, and my bullet/blitz rating accurately describes it. Correspondence chess is extremely unrealistically long, what tournament in the world will you have more than 2 weeks for a game? If your good at chess, the moves will come to you quick, you dont need 24 hours to analyze.
and it's so easy to cheat in correspodence chess every once in a while, you can look at a chess engince for a couple of moves & it will go unnoticed. But you dont have time to fool around with blitz/bullet.
It's true, because it is hard or impossible to use an engine
Nonsense.
- Live crap rating is skewed by random "disconnetions" (i.e. chess.com's live server failures).
- It is possible (and quite common) to cheat using bot.
If achieved honestly, turn-based rating is much more valuable.

For me, as an older player, quick thinking is the first to go. Heh. My memory capacity is reasonably "fine"...though it's definitely not to par 10yrs ago.
Positions I play nowadays vs strong opponents certainly take me longer to calculate than it used to take me. Guess that's why blitz/bullet aren't really for me, although I did enjoy Live games before connection issues got too much (and annoying).
Anyways, I still believe ratings are just indicative of one's strengths. Not substance in forums or of one's overall abilities in this site.