Tactics rating much higher than blitz rating, why?

My stats: 738 blitz, 978 rapid, 1444 daily, 1419 tactics

Experimenting with new openings, my blitz took a hit. It will go back into the 800’s soon. But a difference of 600 points between tactics and blitz? Anyone else have a big gap? Any tips for getting better at blitz? 

Chet...my blitz is around 1000 and my tactics are over 1800. One tip I can offer you for getting better at blitz is to play more rapid to allow your brain to engage more before your mouse button. Rapid still has a time cruch factor so you won't be lolly gagging by any means, but a little more time will help you assess the position a bit more before exploiting your tactical prowess. If I were you I'd concentrate on G15 to G25 for a few weeks, then go back to blitz, you'll be over 1000 before you know it!

Yes this is common. I have found that the way to bring my blitz up is to keep improving the tactics, and play a set number of games a day regardless of outcome so that all your attention is on those games.

Personally, I don't take too seriously.  It's a young man's (usually very young man) sport.It is useful for helping to manage the clock better during rapid or classical games.  Otherwise, I think it's a mode designed for crazy fun. 

Thanks for the feedback club

Compare to other chess.com profiles; chess.com tactics rating seems inflated a few hundred points to game ratings. Tactics rating of say 1800 for someone rated 1500 in rapid is common etc. For some it is a 300 difference, others it might even be 500: who knows how big the gap may be?  

Actually, it is difficult to find any accounts with a tactics rating at, or lower than, game ratings.

Tactics Trainer vs. Blitz rating gap

"Chess is 99% tactics" - Teichmann  - I don't believe that anymore. Reviewing my games, there are so many decisions that go into each move, like, regarding pawn play  "do I capture, not capture, or do nothing", it's the little things adding up over time that decide a won or lost position. And yes, it's a final tactical blow that decides a game, like checkmate, but the position was lost long ago. 

I have a chess tutor. He spent several sessions on improving my tactics. My tactics improved a bit, but honestly they were already pretty strong, My winning percentage didn't really improve. Tutor, whose strength is positional, recommended a book to help. We started studying from a different perspective by going through my  games with a spreadsheet to determine which openings were my weak spots. I have always played all gambits all the time and I'm comfortable playing with material disadvantages while awaiting tactical opportunities. So as I studied my weaker games, I learned to create POSITIONS that created tactical chances. So is chess 99% tactical? maybe it is at master level, but for me it's all about surviving until I find tactical chances. I can't do that in blitz. I have to give my 70 year old brain time to find the moves. I have improved but I think I will improve even more in the near future.

Good guess, but if anything: I'd say master games are less tactical than about positional considerations. Look at it this way: a beginner knows basically no "positional" motifs, but even beginners usually do some tactics. If anything, I'd say master games are even less tactical in ratio of the game simply because both players are strong enough to see most all tactics and prevent them/not walk into them. At that level, most tactics only arise because one side was outplayed positionally; you seldom wait for tactics then: you have to provoke weaknesses and create your own tactics.

Also, I never believed the 99% tactics thing. 99% is WAY too high. It must have been hyperbole if they were serious. Tactics are super important (especially at lower levels [since most games are decided by tactics and blunders there]) but 99% is laughable. It is an insult to positional considerations, openings, endgame study and so on; all of these elements of chess are not cramped into 1% of the game I can assure you.

chess.coms tactics are inflated