The level on Blitz is WAY higher than the ratings

61 moves. 2250 from both players.

And just when it looked like I might win he gets a draw

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/115351126517?tab=review

Iv seen a good chunk of 2100s be 1700 someone legit predicted once a 2100 wouldn't make it past 1900 in blitz

Accuracy lies to you if you look at tilted players they get 70-90% accuracy to and so does 2200s and 2000s and so on

In blitz chess it also looks like 1600-1800 is where all the talents that learn relatively quickly start to improve so your probably facing better opponents then in rapid it feels like if you have some skill/ experience and are semi talented (not all 1600s of course) it looks like you end up in that range

Accuracy does not lie. It is just a meassure how good you have done with the options given in a game. If you play the scholar mate , and you suceed , you will have 100 percent accuracy, or atleast 98. It does not mean anything correlated with elo. Ofc higher elo people in theory should have more accuracy in their average games that low elo people. Generally speaking I think that lower time controls do have more stronger players, and I have the theory that it also is duo to the fact that as the time is shorter , they have more opportunities to train themselves in a lot of games , even if they lose or win. Meanwhile you in rapid play one game each 10 min, they have played 10 games, and they kind of become experts in their range. So, you will find a 1500 bullet player that really plays like a 1900, but he is still 1500 and is stuck there, so is like if you were playing with every boss of every range. Everybody is so stuck that they are kind of 600 elo bosses, 800 elo bosses, 1300, 1500, 2000,... etc. Also is the fact that they generally play really fast, which could confuse you, and force you to play sometimes bad moves.

Also, blitz/ bullet and classical and rapid chess are different. Faster time controls make you literally more faster at thinking, at creating ideas and at using cheaper and more practic options, so maybe it is

Accuracy does lie it doesn't explain how complicated or how easy the position is you can't use accuracy for that

Part of the reason it doesn't explain anything either is higher rated opponents know how to make the position more complicated for them so up to a cetan pint (lets say 2900 elo accuracy would be around 80% ) wait hikaru I think has around 80% average 2900s know how to make a position complicated for 2900s 2100s know how to make it complicated for 2100s so on

Also that's just comparing to stockfish it doesn't explain how good or bad the chess is at all sometimes a 70% accuracy game is harder and better quality than a 95% accuracy game

I notice that a lot of players are playing several 100s of points higher than their rank suggests. I notice it in every category here.

Also the elo estimator ranks y differently depending on the elo you can compare the same games sith different elo levels and get completely differant estimated elo results so even that feature lies I would just completely ignore it

But why would accurace describe how good or bad is it a game? if it can be cuantitative. Literally it is giving a number. If you have a game of 10 moves in total, 6 yours and 4 the opponent, if on your 6 moves, you played good moves, atleast you would have %80 acurace, it is as simple as that. How the machine know if a move is good or not? that is boring to describe, but of course it has a lot of programing theory and mathematics. So, even if a game was really amazing, like some of the older romantic games, the accuracy still can be %60 or %70, because the way the algorithms and the programing side clasifies the overall of a game of chess, is by how efficiently you did with the options you have in an specific game, and how with those options you choose the fastest path to victory. There are a lot of good games from the romantic era with low accuracy, because they played beautifull but those moves were not the most efficient path to victory. You need to take in consideration that chess is not a one by one game, there are two people, and you can not know what is going to be the other move until the other person does it. So, If you sacriface your bishop in the third move, and by any chance the other person does not take it, that move is bad for you and bad for him, you can win the game, and it can be seem as beautiful... but if the other person takes the bishop you are lost, ideally, and it can be whatever other move.

Ha my max is only 200 points of tilt

A good night's sleep ends tilt for me usually I think endless grinding helps with tilt lol (for me)

Not in Rapid.

In Rapid the players ratings and the after game analysis "suggested rating" are on average, much the same.

I have played 1000s of games on here.

In all games, usually get 1900-2300 if I play well. If I play bad, it can be 1600-1700 when I mess up.

On Rapid, I am 2100.

On Blitz, around 1770 at the moment (my peak was 1900)

That's not unusual for a 2100 rapid if you aren't good at blitz you would be around the 1700-1800 range

I mean, I’ve hit 2500 blitz on previous accounts, and never even crossed 2300 for rapid. But the reason I got a blitz rating so high wasn’t that I was playing good or accurately, it’s that I was making fast safe moves and then just flagging them which doesn’t work as well for 10 minute chess.

For me I'm never the one flagging .... True but 10|0 is still sort of blitz chess anyway flagging works pretty well as long as you don't throw the position technically blitz chsss is ten min or less anyway

If anyone is good at bullet at 2200+ "play solid " doesn't usually work unless you have more time then them even then it's a lot harder to do that you actually have to make the position complicated otherwise they might not think