How am I so good at Rapid and so bad in blitz

@mkubecek said in #9:
> For the record, neither "29th out of 100" nor "19th out of 150" says much without an idea of your opponents' strength. That's why rating performance is usually used as a measure. It can be misleading, too, but it still gives you better idea than just the score or rank.

It was an open tournament. So you are kind of right. But if my opponents were weak as it looks like thats what you are hinting then shouldn't I have come first?

@Bbao23 said in #10:

> If you want to improve your speed, try starting with quick puzzle solving on Puzzle Rush Chess.com or Puzzle Racer on Lichess. The more puzzles you solve, the more familiar you'll become with different patterns, thereby increasing your speed of calculation.

I do play puzzles but not puzzle racer. However I am not good in puzzles as I do the Hardest(+600) one not normal. What I am saying is what good is normal when it does not make you better.

@RubberLuffy said in #1:
> The title says it all.
Because you have more time to think .............. think how good you'd be at classical ,seems pretty self explanatory to me xxx

@RubberLuffy said in #11:
> But if my opponents were weak as it looks like thats what you are hinting
Not that. What I'm saying is that the rank or score do not tell anything about how well you did on their own. Hypothetical example: you play two tournaments. In one, you get 6/9 and end up 30th out of 100 with all your opponents rated up to 1500 (new) FIDE. In the other, you get 3/9 and end up 70th out of 100 with your opponents rated 1600 and higher. If you look just at the score or rank, it would seem that you did better in first tournament; but taking the opponents strength into account, I would actually value the second result better.

That's why performance rating is more practical as a measure. It's not perfect and has its own deficiencies but it gives you much better picture than just score or rank.

@mkubecek said in #14:
> Not that. What I'm saying is that the rank or score do not tell anything about how well you did on their own. Hypothetical example: you play two tournaments. In one, you get 6/9 and end up 30th out of 100 with all your opponents rated up to 1500 (new) FIDE. In the other, you get 3/9 and end up 70th out of 100 with your opponents rated 1600 and higher. If you look just at the score or rank, it would seem that you did better in first tournament; but taking the opponents strength into account, I would actually value the second result better.
>
> That's why performance rating is more practical as a measure. It's not perfect and has its own deficiencies but it gives you much better picture than just score or rank.

Okay. I will keep that in mind before telling anyone my rank. I will first find my average opponent rating then tell my points, rank, average opponent. (All this inspired from lichess tournaments).

Like when we press on a player it shows the average opponent of that player.

Tactics...

They work.

No body perfect...just look at Nakamura