chess players are bad

Haha, way to prove JMB's point.

The difference is that beginner level players end games in checkmate because they and their opponents are too inexperienced to get any benefit from or understand resignation.

JMB sums up blitz games well.  Blitz is about finding adequate moves quickly.  If you take the time to find good or best moves too often, your rating will be lower than it could be.  And blitz evaluations are different anyway.  If your "blunders" create lots of complications for your opponent, then your position is probably close to winning.

If you want the game to be more about skill, then increase the time control.  I'd suggest 10-15 second increment too.

Not even remotely correct. Most players here are very casual and many join without fully understanding the rules. 

If Chess.com were to have every single position of every game evaluated by Houdini that would be a tremendous waste of computing power and probably not very helpful. You need to understand your game yourself, just knowing wether or not Houdini would put a "+" next to your move isn't going to help you if you don't understand it. 

If you've played 1000 blitz games and still can't break 1200 rating, why not change your strategy to take account of time and not just moves?  It's what every good blitz player does, whatever you may think about it.

Or you can carry on doing what you are doing.

Theoretically, doesn't matter how good your moves were till clock-out. What's the guarantee you wouldn't have blundered had the game not been limited by time?

I would advise against playing bullet chess if you do not have a well established opening repertoir/portfolio, it is going to be very frustrating. On the other hand, if you do decide playing bullet, then you have to accept that the loss on time is still the loss, no matter how good you played or how bad your opponent played. I'd recommend 10 min 5 sec blitz for starters - I believe that is the longest time control here that is still considered blitz - and then gradually, as you become more comfortable with the time, reduce time to 10 min 0 sec, 5 min 5 sec, 5 min 0 sec, 3 min 2 sec, 3 min 0 sec, 2 min 1 sec, and finally 1 min 0 sec.

You can take a video of the screen to find the exact times of every move, as I've said before.

If your opponents are winning by playing for time, why not stop complaining about it and adopt that strategy?

Maybe you should play longer time controls or try online (correspondence) chess at, say, 3 days per move.

what exactly are you saying, because to me, it sounds like you are blaming your losing on your opponents outplaying you in a shorter amount of time.

Put a 5 or 10 second bonus into all your time controls.

Learn to win games "on the board" -- at whatever time control allows you to reach the end of the game roughly 80 percent of the time.

Then you will surely stop losing games "on the clock."  End of Story.

2/1 is too fast, if you want to play complete games at least 5/2 could be necessary.

Start at Game in 5/5.  And keep adding extra minutes until you can reach the end of the game (on the board) roughly 80-90 percent of the time.

Otherwise you waste your time.  It shows in your game records.

See, for some people even 2/1 is too fast (for me, 1/0 is way too fast, but 2/1 is OK). And as I mentioned in post# 27, for some even 5/0 is impossible. So pick your game, and don't complain when you lose on time - that was, after all, your choice (I did not mean you, SocialPanda, but the OP or "you" in general).

This.  Perhaps it's the idea that if things were just changed a little bit then maybe they wouldn't lose so much.

I don't have time to play 1 hour games. 

The problem is I find that to be too penalizing. 

I like playing thought out games against the CPU offline, where I can take back moves (but when I have the time again I will do that, because that's where you truly get better, by playing a CPU for instance and going through different possiblities of events). I'm not at the level of chess where I feel good about playing a 30 minute game, and then making a mistake on move 32. and ruining the whole experience. 

I would rather play 10, 3 minute games, and go through more lines/ combinations/ situations. 

It's a bad catch-22, because I would like to think the games through more, and I feel like fast games can lead to bad chess, but I do probably prefer long games, and I have played 15|10 or 30 minute games before. 

One way around this that I had before was by playing simultaneous games at 15|10. This was even if I screwed one game up it'd not bother me as much, but I'd still have time to analyze and make long thought process in situations that actually forced that. 

Why don't you just do that rather than complain about bullet games? Looks like a good strategy to me. 

So you want to think, but also want to play speed chess.

I think I see where the problem is.

He just needs to think quicker.

But seriously, if you are running out of time, then your opponent managed their time better. Meaning that they did actually outplay you.

I agree with Caecilius

i can agree

Chess is about playing the best within the time allotted.