Bullet ratings vs FIDE

So if someone is 2000 rated, what would that be on FIDE?  Seems ratings are way inflated here. 

Play some FIDE rated tournements, to find out. You cant compare 1min and 2hour chess.

And some people play great at 1/0, relatively worse at 3/0, then from 3/0 they play relatively better at 5/0.  At 15/0 they're pretty bad, but at 30/0 they're better.

So just like in online chess, if you go to a tourney be sure you've switched your play to the proper gear.  If you've done nothing but bullet for a year and try to play in a tourney it may be frustrating.  You're going to burn a lot of extra energy trying to organize your ideas and calculation which are used to going fast and reaching quick conclusions.

G/90 is a typical time control for USCF club tournaments (people need to get home at a reasonable hour etc). I tend to play 15 or 20 minute blitz games on chess.com and even at that time control I find it's a significantly different game to my OTB games. I play much more aggressively (and unsoundly!) in the online blitz games. I imagine bullet is like that only MUCH more so. You will be punished for the unsound attacks OTB and lose on time if you play bullet the way you would an OTB game ... they are different species of chess.

Add in different rating methodologies, different pools of players, the much higher possibility of cheating online and the fact that you can play many more online games than OTB ones in a given timeframe and you come up with numbers that are superficially similar but unrelated.

The only ratings I think you could compare at all would be something like a USCF quick rating and an online rating gained exclusively from playing 30 minute games. Even that comparison is not great (for the reasons above) but at least you're comparing the same type of chess

Yeah, I think it will vary person to person.  I knew a 1900 USCF player who hung around high 1600s online and one 1900 rated kid who had broken 2200 on the same site (ok, the kid played a lot more online chess).

So I think it just depends.  You can't really rely on a specific conversion.  Don't look to ratings to tell you your strength.  Play games against established players and be honest to yourself about your ability.  Why did the winner win, and why did the loser lose?  Some club nights I have scored very well against ~expert level players, but I don't suddenly think I'm a master (not even close). 

By being honest I mean notice when you're outplayed but win with a tactic or because of an oversight.  Or maybe you barely pulled out a draw in an endgame after losing and defending the entire game.  Or maybe you won on time after playing like an idiot.  If you pay attention to these things in games against established people you don't need a magic formula to estimate yourself.

For me my chess.com bullet rating is inflated by about 200 points but my blitz is a about the same as I am OTB. But then I know at least one player rated much higher than me in real life who is lower than me here at blitz. It really does vary from person to person.

Rating, rating, rating, why don't someone talk about quality instead?

I'm really sure there is much crapmoves in your bullet games!

TENTATIVELY, you take 200 pts off your LONG rating and that will be your OTB rating, give or take. 

Ratings are inflated mostly at the lowest(1200) and highest ratings(2700). At the medium(1800-2200) things are more or less equal. Say a 1200 online won't play 200 points weaker than FIDE 1200 so also 2700 online doesn't mean he/she is equal to the elite players. In the middle it depends mostly on the players. Personally in my own experience, I had beaten 2050, 2080 FIDE rated players in an OTB and on online my rating is more than 2100 in bullet, more than 2000 in blitz. Its more or less equal in my case. Also there are some players who play much better in OTB than online whereas some who play horribly in OTB and play well in Online. I have written on rating inflation some months back pliz check out for more details. Note:- If you play fair and square and reach 2000 online congrates! You must have the courage to beat 2000 OTB. It is you and you alone that can prove yourself

So finally to answer your question, it depends - If your good at bullet/blitz it means you have chess intuition(Every good players are strong at blitz, afterall chess is chess blitz/standard). In FIDE rated tournaments where timers like 2hrs, all you need is concentration and patience(this qualities you can have only if your a chess player). 

There are many factors that should take into account like distractions, free gift to opponents, cheating etc on online games.

If you reach a 2000 blitz rating, you could probably reach 1800 +/- in Fide, but it depends on how you get the 2000 rating, there is many ways to cheat...

Bullet has nothing to do with chess, forget it.

Long games is no point in comparing, because there is way to easy to cheat.

"Bullet has nothing to do with chess, forget it." I disagree with you. The reason that bullet's all about quick grasp of the position at hand in a fraction of a sec, an intuition for the position. I am not talking about bad bullet players but bringing out the qualities of excellent bullet players. Good chess players are good and consistent in all formats of the game.

Bullet is 100% speed, that's all.

So Hikaru Nakamura is just faster than everyone else? That's all?

Mostly yes, I recently read what a norwegian gm said about Nakamura, after playing blitz with him, scoring 2-2, he don't play good, really bad sometimes, hes is mostly fast.

But you know, when a GM thinks a game is weak, we think it's a dam good one!

Besides, I'm sure Naka has his good blitz days and his off blitz days like any of us.  Given Naka's reputation gained though ICC as well as speed events vs top players, it seems like skogli was just indulging in a bit of trolling there.  To call Naka's skill as "bad but fast" is ridiculous.

The norwegian GM is not Carlsen! It's Simen Agdestein!

When a GM call's another player "weak" and "bad" it's not bad as we normal people think, it's just means that Naka does some dobious moves and don't allways follow the right positional plan, but he playes so quick that it's hard to do annything about it.

If Naka was best at all part's, quick and did no bad moves, he would win all the time no matter who's playing the other side.

Find some of he's bullet games, let a good computer analyze them and see, I guess you'll find some bad moves.