How good is 2000 elo in blitz? (serious question)

2000 is average club level from my experience in several countries..

I picked up chess late so I will have to do a ton of puzzles, analyzing and reading to reach 2000 which I probably won't..

but people who pick up chess early and have some good experience OTB seem to reach 2000 easily...

@22

"According to it around 2100 blitz here should be around good enough for 2000 otb."
++ No. Classical, rapid, blitz, bullet are different games requiring different skills and with different ratings.

"there hasn't been noticeable increase for people with stable blitz ratings" ++ There has. See Carlsen: 3276 blitz on chess.com, 2886 blitz on FIDE, where he is World Champion of blitz.

"There's something really amiss" ++ with you: denying what has been proven and twisting words to mean something not said.

"So 2000 blitz is very respectable"
++ 2000 chess.com blitz = 1610 FIDE blitz. If that is respectable or not is relative.

I said increase, as in increase over time. I only added this to be as cautious as possible, the survey was still done after covid started.

According to the website people with 3000 blitz here have a rating of approximately 2630 or 2645 (depending on if it's US FIDE or worldwide - which is meant to be the same thing of course). This fits perfectly with Carlsen and Nakamura's ratings of 3100 or 3200.

As you go down the blitz ratings the difference gets much less between blitz chess.com ratings and otb ratings to the point where there's even a reversal - 1500 blitz here is around 1600 FIDE, and even higher FIDE since the recent ratings bump.

It is unimaginable to me how you can't understand this.

We need a sample of 10 g-masters

@26

"We need a sample of 10 g-masters"

# Player rapid rapid rapid blitz blitz blitz
chess.com FIDE difference chess.com FIDE difference
1 Carlsen 2896 2823 73 3253 2886 367
2 Caruana 2757 2722 35 3036 2770 266
3 Nakamura 2769 2746 23 3254 2874 380
4 Abdusattorov 2770 2733 37 3033 2661 372
5 Giri 2741 2687 54 3087 2715 372
6 Ding 2719 2818 -99 3128 2787 341
7 Firouzja 2829 2724 105 3127 2863 264
8 Nepomniachtchi 2811 2754 57 3088 2800 288
9 So 2843 2742 101 3030 2767 263
10 Wei Yi 2740 2743 -3 3107 2984 123

Average 38 304

Standard Deviation 59 80

Conclusion:

Chess.com rapid = FIDE rapid +38
Chess.com blitz = FIDE blitz + 304

Hence 2000 rating chess.com blitz = 1696 rating FIDE blitz

What tygxc is saying is 100% false. It is well-known that at the lower ratings blitz here is harder to get rating points in. One source of proof is thesurvey that has been done with thousands of players which shows that 1500 blitz here = 1600 FIDE, or higher FIDE since the recent ratings bump - I'd estimate maybe 1700.

The vast majority of people here have lower blitz ratings than rapid because rapid is easier to get at the lower levels but as you go much higher rapid is harder to get. Still, the top rapid player on this site is an IM, and rapid isn't treated as seriously by higher rated players.

This is hardly some mindbending paradoxical crazy confusing stuff yet that poster keeps saying that garbage despite being proven wrong over and over. There is something very, very wrong with that poster.

Not so easy to get 2000 blitz online rating. If average player can get 2000 it won't mean much. There a lot players who try to get 2000 but can't. I would say 1900 to 2000 elo for 2000 blitz online rating.

Cmom !!!! 1600 to 1700 fide is equal to 2000 blitz online rating; I beat these players and they don't have the same tactical awareness. 1800 to 1900 fide will give a 2000 fide a game and still lose.

Classical, rapid, blitz, bullet are DIFFERENT games with different ratings requiring different skills.
There is no conversion between different games.
Within one game the ratings are convertible.
Chess.com rapid = FIDE rapid +38
Chess.com blitz = FIDE blitz + 304

@36

"Looking at the top of the rating list is incorrect."

++ It is correct as those are established ratings.
I presented the mathematics proof that there should be a constant difference.
The expected outcome of a rapid game between A and B should be the same on chess.com as on FIDE.
Thus
chess.com rapid rating A - chess.com rapid rating B = FIDE rapid rating A - FIDE rapid rating B
Thus
Chess.com rapid rating A - FIDE rapid rating A = chess.com rapid rating B - FIDE rapid rating B
This should extend over the whole range, as long are ratings are well established: not for new or young players.

@35

"He might be an older gentleman who was over 2000 FIDE in his prime." ++ Over 2200

@40

"chess.com's rating distribution is it's not very gaussian"
++ That does not matter. The ratings should be stable, that is all.

"I suppose the simple explanation for the different ratio in this case is the K factor changes over 2200" ++ No, FIDE uses 3 K-factors for elo:
K=40 for new and young players, K=20 for most players, K=10 above 2400.
Chess.com uses Glicko-2, which calculates a personal RD and K at all times for all players.

For young and new players it takes some time for the rating to catch up with progress.

Suppose some 1500 rated young players intensively study chess, but only play among one another, then they stay around 1500 even if they reach 2500 strength.
That resolves only if they play against players outside their group.

Another example of a closed pool was Claude Bloodgood. In prison he played rated games against other inmates and reached a rating of 2759.

@42

"there's a difference between the skill distribution and the rating distribution"
++ No, the rating is a way to measure skill by observing results.
The mathematics stem from the Kalman filter.
Of course there are more beginners than supergrandmasters, that does not matter.

"It doesn't matter what chess.com uses since I was talking about OTB ratings."
++ This thread is to compare FIDE over the board ratings to chess.com online ratings of the same time control.
FIDE uses elo, which converges slower, while chess.com uses Glicko-2, which converges faster.

"For OTB I suggest K factor" ++ Glicko-2 uses a personalised and variable K-factor.

"for online I point out chess.com's abnormal rating distribution"
++ That does not matter, as long as ratings are stable and there are no closed pools.

"What's harder to understand, IMO, are the ways in which the ratio can depend on rating too." ++ Higher ratings are stable, lower ratings are unstable as long as the player improves.

@44

One is a truncated gaussian distribution, the other is a gaussian distribution centered around 1500, where that site seeds new players. However, there is no indication that the average blitz player on one site is comparable to the average blitz player on the other site.
However, Carlsen stays Carlsen on both sites and he has stable ratings over the board as well as online.

Wait a second.. Why don't we get 3 samples for people of every 100 Elo, from 900 Elo, to 2800 Elo, then put in into a curve, to make a chess.com calculator

@46

"both sites have beginners and top players" ++ Top players are the same, but beginners on one site are weaker than beginners on the other site. The average player on one site is weaker than the average player on the other site.

"ratings should be allowed to go lower" ++ Yes, but low or even negative ratings are hard.
Seeding newbies at 1500 avoids that psychological hurdle.

"more top players play on chess.com" ++ Why? Carlsen plays both and he is the top.

" That does not matter. The ratings should be stable, that is all."

This is a ludicrously false statement in every conceivable way.

But even if it were true, it has been explained many times now that chess.com using different ratings systems at different levels. chess.com have literally said it themselves. Different distrubtions, they said that at the lower ratings they found that there was more logistic rather than normal distribution so they account for that in their system.

Not only are there different distrubtions, they are literally rated differently using all kinds of different mathematics. It's not the original Elo formula being applied at all.

I would have thought that you might try to cling to your view but you would at least not repeat this false claim.

How wrong and pathetic can you possibly get.

We need our own tests

@51

"It's not the original Elo formula being applied at all."
++ chess.com uses Glicko-2, FIDE uses elo.
http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf 
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B022024

Glicko-2 converges faster, but needs more calculations.

"chess.com using different ratings systems at different levels"
++ No. Chess.com uses Glicko-2 for all levels.

@47

"Why don't we get 3 samples for people of every 100 Elo, from 900 Elo, to 2800 Elo"
++ First because FIDE elo starts at 1400 and most chess.com players are below that
Second because it is hard to find both published chess.com and FIDE ratings for lower rated players.

@49

"very hard (or at least, very tedious) to prove the average player on chess.com is weaker"
++ No, it is simple: the rating difference from Carlsen to the average player on chess.com is larger than on the other site. Hence the average player on chess.com is weaker than the average player on the other site.

"Titled Tuesday has cash prizes and draws more top GMs?" ++ Yes

Bro