Estimating a rating difference between blitz and standard

Here is a question that has been bugging me: What might the difference of rating (real strength) be between blitz and standard? By my opinions, I see some 1600 standard rated players play like 1300-1400s in blitz while I see a 1400 standard rated player play like a 900-1000. What are your thoughts on this?

There's only one rating that matters and that's your OTB rating

Some people, especially those that rarely play blitz, are not so good at it, while they do actually play slower chess games well..

Also, some people only play blitz and they play for tricks, forks, exploiting pre-moves, trying to surprise the oponent, playing for a win on time, etc. - so they have a higher blitz rating, but they actually don't play good chess.

In the end, as Arctor said, the main thing is your OTB rating, but of course only IF you're actually playing rated OTB games.. (as this takes time and not all working people have the time to go and play tournaments)

Also, not all OTB games are FIDE-rated. A lot of games that I've played were not, even though the oponents were strong... So, before my break from chess, I've had a 2005 FIDE rating and 2174 national rating, which shows a big discrepancy between the two.

There's no way to accurately correlate one type of rating (ie CC, OTB, Blitz etc) with another in all players, esp since many players specialize in only one type of chess. I rarely play anything besides CC now, so I'm much worse at Blitz; but someone who specializes in Blitz could be a much better blitz player than me but nowhere near as good in CC as I am, not that I'm that great at CC! 

I don't agree with arctor BTW what makes OTB ratings anymore significant than CC ratings? That's assuming the CC ratings are not based on cheating and/or PC assistance (which is allowed in some tnmts and/or some websites)

I think that is precisely what he had in mind, yes.

There is a lot of cheating in online chess, be it CC or something else. This is why I only play 3min blitz games (or 1min bullet), as then there isn't enough time for people to consult the engine about their moves.

On the other hand, OTB blitz and OTB rapid ratings are also a good measure of one's strength and - as you've said - they all measure different things, so it is quite normal that someone is better in faster games and that someone else is better at slower games, so this is why there are separate ratings instead of just one.

Also, the reason why the slower time controls are given more importance is because then the chess players actually have the time to think and calculate long variations... in blitz, it is about playing aggresivelly and finding good moves fast, instead of finding the :best: moves if given enough time.

Blitz and bullet are a different animal.  Compared to serious chess I'd (nearly) go so far as to call them variants.  If you strive for good play in speed chess you're going to have a much lower rating than when you start using the clock as a main element.  So it's difficult to look at blitz skill and try to estimate standard skill.

 It's not just a matter of cheating and other outside assistance (which is pandemic in correspondance chess), it's how seriously people take the different formats. People invest a lot of time and money to play competitive chess OTB, so you can be sure when they show up that they're there to play and leave nothing in the tank. Online games on the other hand are often used to waste a few minutes, have fun or experiment with new ideas