How good are the top GMs such as Hikaru Nakamura, really?

I know I'm capable of some pretty nice moves myself, and when I'm playing my best, I've demonstrated I can execute game ending/changing tactics.

I don't play on this site often at all (as you can see) but on the site I do play on, I'm rated in the high teens. What chance would a 1750-1825 level player have of getting a couple games off Hikaru in a 10 game competition if they were playing at their peak?

These are the top GMs.  https://2700chess.com/

Naka recently improved into the top 20.

Just saying.

What some people don't realize is that, when facing a player who is much better, that player can play the #1 best move in many positions.

And I don't mean chess.com's silly 99% game analysis thing. I mean 1200 vs me is basically like 1200 vs stockfish... I find an engine-level move often enough that there's never a chance for them to avoid a loss.

So you ask what could a 1800 player do against Hikaru? They could do nothing. Naka could literally play 100 of them at the same time and win every game. GMs have been known to do this, it's called playing a simul. The 1800 makes way too many mistakes... so much so that Nakamura wouldn't need more than 1 or 2 seconds per move. The mistakes are too obvious to require thought to refute, he can refute them instantly.

Of course Naka is human... so he may not win 100% against 1800 rated players (if he played 100 at once) but that's more like the exception that proves the rule. Most games would be far too boring to stimulate any actual analysis... and in his bored stupor he might blunder, that's how humans play sometimes, but it wont be because the 1800 did anything good

I played a 2600 GM in a simul OTB once.

He played right into my engine prep, haha! A very complex sacrifice leading to a wild position.

... and of course he didn't play it perfectly! Now I'm winning!

But he played it good enough. I calculated for 5 minutes, he calculated for 10 seconds. His calculation was better. In the end the complicated tactics favored him and he won.

And Naka is even better than the guy I played so...

A professional GM is unimaginably better than anyone under 2000.

Literally unimaginably.

As they say "it's not even the same game, it just happens to have the same rules."

I've never been beaten 10 times in a row by anyone, much less 100 times. What's the biggest difference between the top players and someone around my level?

Do you think Hikaru won because the other guys were intimidated and weren't player their best, or because he simply out played them?

Experience.

Let's say you go see a sports movie, and it starts out the same as the other 100 sports moves you've seen in your life. The team is down on their luck and having trouble, but they have some promising players. In the end they win the big game and it's a happy ending.

When you go to see movie number 101 are you a genius if you predict the ending? Of course not. It's just that you've seen 100 like it, and you can reliably predict the plot.

When a professional grandmaster plays someone like you (or me) they've seen it 100 times before (so to speak) so it's not even a game in the sense that they have to do any real analysis. We never put enough pressure on them to get to that point. We make some mistakes they've seen 100 times before, and they punish us in ways that they've done 100 times before. Nothing is new, nothing requires thought.

That's the biggest difference. You will be thinking about your moves. The GM will not be thinking about his.

And of course the best example of this is a simultaneous exhibition where the GM plays dozens of people at the same time. You think a lot, but they just play whatever move comes to mind... and they win easily.

Sometimes blindfolded!

https://en.chessbase.com/post/timur-gareyev-world-record-blindfold-attempt

I just have a hard time believing that I would have no chance at all, but I guess that's why these players have a higher blitz rating than me. There must be something they're doing that I'm not.

Your blitz rating is only after one game, so who knows.

But when comparing 1300 players to 2300 players, the thing the higher rated player is "doing differently" is mostly being more consistent at not blundering pieces.

i almost drawed hikaru, it was just 1 mistake by me otherwise draw

This is a common remark... "if you take away all my blunders, I was actually winning (or drawing) against my higher rated opponent, but after I blundered I lost"

heh.

Picture someone good enough to beat you 95% of the time.
Now picture someone good enough to beat that player 95% of the time.
Now picture someone good enough to beat that player 95% of the time.
That's about how good a top GM is.

I think people genuinely underestimate how good  top people are at their profession. Take your rating of around 1400, and imagine playing a 200. If the 200 were to win, you'd basically need to die at the board. That difference (1400-200=1200) is much less than the difference between you and a top GM (3000-1400=1600). A player much stronger than myself (2000+USCF) estimated a top GM would win with 30s to his 2hr. 

I'm rated 1700+ on the site I play on. I've played 1 game on this account, I'm higher rated than 1400.

I'm considering becoming a sub so I can play Naka. The only thing I don't like is, he plays these weird odds matches. If I were to play Hikaru I would want 3+0 or 3+1 with the black pieces with the traditional set-up.

Beggars can't be choosers, as they say.

You mean Lichess? Lichess ratings are not much higher.