Is the bullet pool here on chess.com exceptionally strong?

I am 1700+ elsewhere in the one minute pool but barely manage to break 1400 here.

Hm... I dunno I can't tell. Usually people don't have answers to such questions as to the general I dunno...

20 MILLION

members on the site's Skill levels.

nah just means you're bad

i'd win 19/20 games

From what I've heard the ratings are harder to get here than at other sites

I haven't played much on other servers, but I've heard that at least some other servers have a higher average rating.

Ratings are only meaningful for comparison within a rating pool, so it's not meaningful to compare a blitz rating on chess.com with someone else's blitz rating on another site or with someone else's FIDE blitz rating.  It's only useful for comparing with other chess.com ratings at the same time control.

Even if they all use the same formulas, you've got a different group of players.  You may also have a different starting level - if everyone starts at 1800 on one site, ratings are likely to be roughly 600 points higher than another site where they start at 1200.  Also, if you refund rating points when cheaters are banned, you'll have more rating inflation than on a site that doesn't refund rating points.  And there could be other inflationary and deflationary effects that will affect some sites more than others.

FIDE and USCF or other national Elo ratings are not directly comparable either, although they're usually within a couple hundred points for anyone who is fairly active in both rating pools.

You’re just wood pushing

I'm FIDE 1850(won many times 2000-2100 players OTB) and i'm here in bullet 1650-1750 sometimes lower than 1600 , lags, form, mood dont know, usually lags -  but i will guess bullet players 1500-1700 are pretty strong here - or I am just better at longer time controls - but my observation is that fights are usually tough in that range.

I see you posted 3 games, I only looked at this one.

I've seen this stuff before... these are always strange... because it looks like a normal game. Sometimes I honestly don't understand why some people are rated under 1000... I mean this could be 1500 or 1600 right? Or will someone tell me I'm crazy? Sure black was a little disorganized, but white played well.

You definitely need to be coordinated with the mouse you do have (and it can't be dirty or glitchy or whatever).

I remember with just regular 3 and 5 minute blitz I took a 100-200 point hit to my rating when playing on someone else's setup. That's because it definitely boosts your rating if you can play all the way to checkmate in an endgame like this and use only a few seconds to do it:

These are important in 1 mins blitz,

1. Premoves

2. Predictive moves, how much can you correctly predict your opponent move

3. Pre analysed opening ( should take opening in 3-5 secs)

4. Fast ending techniques ( should finish simple 10 move checkmate  in 3-5 secs)

5. Time management, when to play tactics, when not to play

The point is if you know the pattern then you can use all premoves.

For example a ladder mate should never take as much as a whole second off the clock once it's begun.

Then this pattern for cutting the king off

Well, I suppose it would take more than a few seconds if black hides on b6, for example, and you don't see an easy mate pattern. In that case make SMALL MOVES. like Qg8-g7 and Rf1-f2-f3-f4 .

Such a sequence with the rook can be made in one smooth motion.

After you double on the 6th rank you can capture the pawn. Continue to make small move until you see a mate pattern.

(of course this is only if you're desperately low on time. If you have 10-20 seconds then you can stop and calculate a little instead of 100% autopilot)

Yeah, no. Your rating on the other site you're referring to is not your actual strength in bullet. Folks there are overrated by at least 300 points.

I play 2m1sec bullet and have 785 rating. I think   some of the games are good. I  do have a timeproblem. Many games are so good that analyzeengine give caps score at 90 and above. Had a 97 yesterday, but there are also 30,40 and 50 scoring in some games. Fide longchess i have 1450 rating. I see a lot of good players rated below 1000 bullet.

I dont think <1000 can be good at any time control. Bullet will be much worse for them.

But whether your opponent is good or not also depend on your perception.

The problem is when there is 1000  vs 1000, one cant find and exploit his opponent weakness easily ( and he might think that his opponent might be good). The same to any level 2000 vs 2000 etc.That is why most people are stalled at those rating. But someone who can find the weakness of same level of opponents would become better rated player, 2500, 2800 etc.

And the CAP score is quite flaw, if you play open system opening with lots of tactical posibilities, your CAP score will be likely low( you will likely miss tactics)

If you play closed system such as stone wall, your CAP scores will be likely higher( less mobility----》less chance of tactics---》 less likely to miss tactics----》 higher CAP scores)

Very unlikely to see, such rating difference, unless he is a smurf.  Being a FIDE 1848,  would have sound theoretical knowledge of chess whereas 1000-1200 are just moving pieces without sound plan.

<1000 bullet could also mean he's too slow, which could be caused by age or disability, or by playing with a touchpad instead of a mouse (I have heard of people doing this, and it hammered their rating).

5 years ago, 1400-1500 players are easily steamrolled. Maybe now no more. Nowadays, there are very, very few players here willing to play unrated, so that is another indication of something changing.

So are players here getting better? But if they are getting better than why does the TOP ratings are similar between this site and other sites? I know other sites, the top players are also around 3000.

My guess is there is a big concentration of players at the strong club level, and they are all pooling at here at 1600-1800 and pulling each other down all the time. So no one breaks out and it becomes a wall of sorts.