Would you rather have a title or high rating?

FIDE : CM or NM title VS high chess.com rating , let's say 3000 blitz (plus an actual skills and understanding of the game of course).

I imagine if I got a high rating I would most likely be eligible for the title anyway

If you prove to chess.com that you have a title, you get a free, permanent membership.

'Nuff said.

Edit: I didn't read the last part in parentheses, 3000 blitz in a nanosecond.

The actual understanding is worth more than any title.

Can't do both, high rating =no title allowed,forbidden forever. Of course it's just our imaginary world.

I already have the title "Super Hero", hence my low rating. So, you know...

I'd rather be able to play chess properly.

given that a high online blitz rating at chess.com has no actual meaning I would rather have a classical title like CM.

then again, I would never ever get it, its not about talent, I'm simply too lazy to ever be able to improve in such fashion.

@ninjaswat">@ninjaswat what do you mean

And I would like to have a high rate

High rating.

Because then more fun.

Title only if GM, anything below is meh.

GM needs very, very, very high rating, and I'm old, so its impossible.

I wouldnt care about that either. GM means you've truely mastered the game.

High rating; FM is a useless title

I wanna be the first one to have a BM title

High ratings is meaningless without a title.

So in a hypothetical world where a genie either gifts me a chess title with my current skillset or I get the skills to play chess at 3000 blitz but can never get a title I'd chose the rating. Rather improve my chess game than have a fake title.

However, if I could get a title and the commensurate skills I'd take the title.

I would take the skills and then join as many otb blitz tournaments as possible. Free money

High rated untitled player > titled player with average rating