Can a 2000 rated Blitz players beat 1600 Classic players in Classic games?

Another example to illustrate how easily won positions in classical controls can be problematic in fast controls.

This time it was a blitz game with 10 minutes per side time control. Again this is a win for White and in classical time control it should not be too difficult to convert the position, but I had a shock after seeing Rh4. In fact I looked at the resign button several times on that turn in the game.

@TheJackalC4 (#14) @penandpaper0089 (#16)

True, but 2000 players must have reached that stage somehow, howsoever positional or tactical they can be, but overall they are still 2000 based on their play. The way they play, and perhaps the relevant time controls, define their games.

@penandpaper0089 (#19)

Yes Nf6 wins, but I falsely believed, upon seeing the sudden g5-g6, that White was winning.

@Elubas (#21)

I once saw a similar idea in which my friend lost a game because of his opponent pushing a b4 pawn to b3 in a very similar manner to create either an a- or a b- passed pawn which was untouchable by my friend's dark-squared bishop. Upon seeing the position in my game, I recalled my friend's game and became a bit worried.

As the time allocated per player goes down towards 10 seconds per play, the game becomes more of 'who plays the better and quicker legal move' rather than 'who plays the better logical move'.

 Really depends on the person: the strength of one's blitz play may be quite different from their play in longer time controls. In my case, for example, my bullet rating tends to be around 2150-2200, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be much higher than 2000 in longer time controls, because a major part of my bullet strength is how fast my pattern recognition works, and apparently it wouldn't be as important in classic games. For some other people, it may be the opposite: they are much worse at blitz/bullet than at classic games, because their thought processes aren't that fast, but very deep. 

On this website, I've seen NMs and even FMs who I could reasonably fight in 1 minute games, winning every so often. I'm not fooling myself though: against the same opponents in, say, 45+45 games I would be a roasted turkey.  

So, back to your question: he may or he may not. A 2000 blitz player can be a 1500 classic player, but he can also be a 2500 classic player (well, maybe I'm exaggerating, but the point stands).

A blitz player should be even better in classical chess; they have more time to think, and their moves as a result should be of better quality.

In blitz you tend to have very little time to calculate deeply. 

I've seen IM's at the 1700 on Chess.com, but I'm not foolish enough to think a 1700 can actually beat them.

Not everyone is good at blitz. It's a different way of thinking.

"A blitz player should be even better in classical chess; they have more time to think, and their moves as a result should be of better quality."

A blitz player's opponent will have more time to think in a classical game too, though, so they have the same advantage. A potential problem for the blitz specialist is that they will benefit less from the extra time than the "slow but deep" classical specialist. The moves that the classical specialist would miss in blitz, they may no longer miss in classical, and so the blitz specialist wouldn't be able to take advantage of the blunders he is used to seeing. To use the extra time on the clock properly, it's not just a matter of the blitz specialist thinking longer; they have to actually change the way they think/play to some extent; they have to look for deeper variations and plans than they normally would.

"In blitz you tend to have very little time to calculate deeply."

In blitz there is also much less of a need to calculate deeply.

I'm amazed at the responses. For the Blitz players sharing their thoughts, one common denominator are their strength with Patern Recognition. Based on what I'm reading from commenters, Blitzers may have the advantage against Classical players on Classical games. How true if I say that Blitzers will be better on openings and end games while Classics will dominate mid games on a classical game. I played perhaps a couple Blitz/Bullet games and I don't remember passing 8-10 moves and would just freeze. My brains would just tell me to slow down, think, process and execute...10 minutes later...even if the game is only 5 minutes or shorter. Lol.

Well it depends amongst different players. Perhaps for you, slower time control would be better, because you are able to calculate moves in greater depth and detail, or perhaps because you want to cultivate the good habit of making best moves.

Usually the time remaining on the clock can be a rather challenging issue to tackle, since you will then be facing two opponents simultaneously - the player himself and the time. You are battling against time. Time management is necessary in faster time controls since a time flag would result in a loss for a player regardless of how winning the player is, as long as his/her opponent has sufficient material on board to launch a checkmate even if the checkmate is clearly improbable (but not impossible). A consequence of this is that to avoid a loss on time, the player may play inferior moves and his/her blunder rates may correspondingly increase. Having pattern recognition and good endgame skills ready on your hand (I do not literally mean copying down notes on your hand!) can be an added advantage to a player in blitz, and in fact this applies to classical games also.

Actually all the above opinions, including mine, are just opinions from the few of us. Perhaps classical players may provide you with alternative opinions.

When it comes to endgames, you need the extra time offered by classical chess. Endgames tend to be overlooked in blitz, and it's usually just a blunderfest. Another benefit of classical chess is that you have time to think over opening variations in odd/uncommon openings replies.

Don't even get me started on bullet.