How long does it take you to reach 2000?

I'm going to stay out of the rest of the argument here ... but regarding this point, it's entirely reasonable for an NM to be around 2100 FIDE or so.

In the U.S. and Canada, at least, there aren't as many FIDE-rated events to play in, depending on where you live. So it's often the case that one's national rating (USCF or CFC) is higher, while their FIDE rating lags behind ...

Being 2150 fide and a USCF NM is entirely possible but not a 2150 "fide NM" as such a title doesn't exist.

I would be absolutely useless over the board, I rarely play Rapid as it is, too slow for me, what would I do at a table in a 3 hour match, can't whip my phone out and start scrolling or anything, I'd be bored senseless, you have to made of certain material to have that kind of patience. That said I've never tried it. I've won 515 games by timeout / dirty flagging in blitz and lost 183, can't really adopt that strategy in classical games. But it is true, the true test of one's ability is over the board, not on here. Ability and patience, you'd have to be seriously committed and most of us just don't have the time.

I agree with most but the last part. Most people don't exclusively play one or the other. The pool is still the same players.

and the NM i played OTB has a chess.com bullet rating of 2150, but i dont know his actual OTB rating...

i eventually got up to about 1900, then my gmail got hacked and i had to create another, which i eventually got to the mid/late 1900s and eventually to 2000. then i quit for about 4 months. which is why im not as strong as i was

i request that you dont share the names please.

I played with a Super GM named Jorge Cori #132 in the world at the other platform. Two classic games I find him not that strong. But I lost both games. Same with why can't you reach 2000 and here and of course you cannot beat me even you find a 2000 weak.

what?

@AngryPuffer I said how can you say 2000 is weak when you cannot even reach 1700.

read the forum

@AngryPuffer Read your comments. This is one, "yeah this is shockingly true. I played some 2150s on here and they didnt seem super strong as i expected them to be, but when i plyed a 2150 fide NM from a chess club, he was much more difficult to crack and he definitely knew what he was doing which led him to win an endgame" +++ BE A 2000 FIRST BEFORE YOU SAY WE ARE WEAK. IF WE ARE WEAK THEN WHAT ARE YOU STRONG?

i showed some games where i beat people over 2000 and above. you want me to show more?

@AngryPuffer ok show me games. Show more I haven't seen the games you beat 2000 players. Am waiting.

"Removed name" does that mean account caught cheating?

im not going to share the username of that account

@AngryPuffer no need it show on the accuracies percentage.

pretty much every annotation you wrote proves you're 1600-1700.

For one, the Alapin Sicilian is one of the most respected anti Sicilians there are and has been played by top level players in must win situations. The "worse IQP" is the main line. 7.a3 is a typical idea to allow the bishop to develop to d3 without being vulnerable to Nb4 jumps. 11. Nxd5 isn't a bad move either, the idea is to be able to develop to f4 with the dark squared bishop. If you don't take the knight black will play ...Nf6 and you suddenly have a lot of pressure on your d4 pawn which is also a typical idea in IQP structures for the blockading side to remove the blockade to apply pressure. Trading the blockading piece, especially if it is a knight, in order to put a worse blockader is a normal and logical idea. The queen is typically the worst blockader. Ne4 seems like a senseless move as you don't want the knight to be on e4 blocking the e file. You most of the time want to either leave the knight on c3 and keep the tension or trade because control of the square in front of the pawn is often critical. If you can see a situation where white has queen on d3, rook on d1 and the knight still on c3, black will have a tough time removing the blockade to apply pressure to the pawn without allowing white to play d5 and trade off the IQP. If the idea to transfer the knight over to the kingside seems promising, then the typical route is through e2 because that gives the flexibility of going to g3 or f4 and it doesn't block both the b1-h7 diagonal and the e file simultaneously. There can be situations where going through e4 is good, like if there are dark square holes, specifically on f6 and d6, but here the knight on e4 has no real prospects.

The real mistake was the combination of putting the bishop on e3 which is passive and blocks the e file (Bf4 was possible because the d4 pawn is defended tactically) combined with the fact that the Bb1 and Qd3 plan was flawed even though it is often a typical idea in such positions. Here, it's just too slow and doesn't really achieve anything.

Even with all of that, it isn't like white is losing. There is nothing really here to show that white is not 2000 strength. The game up to this point could have been played by 1500s up to above 2000 strength players.