rating difference blitz and rapid

because blitz has you making faster moves, and its usually more difficult to think at faster speeds, at least for beginners. (someone please correct me if this is wrong) im the same way. (although ive only played 3 blitz games- im just too slow)

Generally after playing a lot of rapid games as a beginner it becomes harder and harder to switch to blitz, which is why in OTB when you're starting out you don't begin with the time control that the GMs and other titled players have. Start with 15|10 games to learn how to move the pieces around, make sure that's intuitive, then play a bit of blitz, get crushed, that's normal, then use rapid to stop hanging pieces, work on getting faster in blitz, etc., maybe try a little bullet to prepare for time-scrambles, and that's how I train. Currently at around 1650 blitz and 1600 rapid btw.

Yes i know, i just love the excitement of blitz, but the blunders i make there under timepressure, i love it and i hate it, but is for everyone the same, i think, the question remains, i am just the same guy, same level of playing blundering once or two in blitz and zero or 1 in rapitd, thats the average.

I find my blitz rating is always around 200 points lower than my rapid. Which is odd because I play better when I play fast

you play more blitz than rapid then right? so your Glicko RD is higher in rapid and therefore you gain more points, it's easier to climb.

no its the same between 6 min or plus and 10, settings 100 plus rating, 100 minus.

That point is moot anyway because I play more rapid than I do blitz

enough spamming to get points please. Just being active on the forums will get you more than actually doing that...

lol just checked you, 1000 rating difference.

I also have a big difference between blitz and rapid. I cannot play fast, I'm totally fumbler on that. I don't even mention bullet where I'm zero at all.

I think I'm fine with that, I do really enjoy my 30 minute games.

I’m sure if you played blitz more than rapid then your blitz would be just as high as your rapid. In rapid you probably try. It is the opposite for me.

mine is 600 point diff because I never play blitz since I was like 400 rapid.

For me it's around 300 point difference. Which is fine I guess. First you get good , then you get faster. So first get better by playing slow and then get faster 

For me it's a 50ish point difference... I WANT TO HIT 1700 BLITZ SO BADLY RN

No I don't think so. I've already tried over the years and it doesn't work... I mean yes, if I play only blitz I get better at blitz, sure, but I'll never be as good as in long rapid. I specified long rapid because 10 minutes is still blitz for me, 15 a bit short but I can play, 30 is perfectly playable. I tried correspondance chess also, 3 days per move, and wow I'm so good at it ! So my conclusion is: a 100 meter runner is different from a marathon runner, I just play what I am good at.

Same 

In theory, blitz and bullet ratings should be inflated compared to rapid. This is especially true for top tier chess players; however, chess.com says that the average rating for each time control is about 850. 

Yes, that s the weird thing to me, i am 40% average overall in blitz, but 80% overall in rapid.

You are right, you can compare it with athletics, different training, different muscles, a 100 meter athletic champion will never win the marathon.

What i dont like about rapid, sometimes, when my oponent is in losing position, they keep the clock ticking and must wait?