Rapid Rating vs. Blitz Rating (Am I better at rapid, or is it because the player pool is weaker?)

I think the rapid rating is higher simply because that's what chess.com defaults to when you first join and start your first game. There are thus a lot of first timers whose rating are near the default rating of 1200 but are actually a lot worse than that and easy to beat. Was the same for me after i joined, then a few games in you discover the other time limited games. Thus this constant influx of new users keeps the longer term users rating higher on average in the rapid mode. 

You're fast gene is turned on while you're slow gene is turned off

I am much worse in shorter games. I am 625 in bullet, 809 in blitz, 1214 in rapid and 1345 in daily 🤣 i play rapid maily 60 minutes long. I make stupid blunders in short games and If I start to think more, I lose on time. And chess is much about thinking. I need more time to calculate. For me bullet and blitz is for fun or practising openings.

Sorry, the other way around then

You are right, the rapid pool is way too small to be accurate. It is only close to 3 times of the size of the blitz pool:

Rapid has 40,197,915 players: https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live/rapid

Blitz has 15,601,093 players: https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/live

It needs to be 100 times of the Blitz pool size to be accurate!

For me is it also mystery... my rapid rating is more then 600 higher then blitz!! (>1500 vs 900) So I believe one of those number must be complete nonsense. When I was active player, my real elo was close to 1500.

1650 rapid and 1400 blitz for me ( what the hell!)

Rapid > 1350, blitz 1102, bullet 820 🍻

fam idk what ur on. In this case the rapid pool is 3x that of the blitz pool. now its rapid to blitz ratio: 65M:25M so idk what u guys are on about blitz having a bigger pool than rapid. And yes for some reason rapid ratings for some are higher than blitz (like me) what surprises me is the 200 point difference between blitz and bullet.

You suck at both.

I started 3 years ago on and off, and not one person has ever told me to get better at chess at playing blitz chess. The best played rapid then over time knew the right moves through repition which gave them intuition. After that, they played blitz having the intuition and knowledge, automatically knowing the better moves. Go ahead and play blitz chess, if your a beginner or if you played for a few years but don't expect to increase your elo over 2000. It's the opposite way, go through pain playing classical and learning until it becomes intuition then over time it will translate to increasing your blitz rating. Playing blitz chess in such a short time and expecting to realize all the lines and candidate moves, forcing moves, middlegame and endgame strategy all in 3-5 minutes is ridiculous, not to mention memorizing computer suggestions, is asking so much for mere mortals. Playing only blitz chess will translate to bad habits in rapid chess.

Blitz players suck... T I win playing very bad every time 😂

I am consistently about 200 points higher in rapid than in blitz. This seems like a common experience.

I'm about the same.

no blitz is just enough time for security, but not enough to think. This makes it harder for general people, but easier for prodigies and sly people.

rapid and blitz don't usually start to even out until around 2000 elo its pretty normal for rapid to be 200+ higher than blitz in most cases until around 1800 blitz or higher plus at higher levels there's less people in rapid which means a weaker pool to play against in rapid and makes blitz stronger

imagine this answer being downvoted this hard for speaking facts. this is why forums are a joke.

no.

if you think forums are just a joke then don't comment if your fine with trolling and being a joke then go ahead and ignore me