Speed has replaced Quality (here on lichess in particular)

I mean one can say: those are the days. But I draw my conclusions. For me personally, everyone is entitled to do it according to his façon. You don’t have to agree of course.

-Download lichess db: thanks but no thanks. It‘s a heap of ... (there might be some gems, sure, say 1ppm). I prefer a quality db like ChessBase.
-Bullet suitable for training purposes: no
-Blitz/Rapid: with some restrictions ok, self-discipline is required
-Question: Is lichess rating comparable to Elo. Answer no, subtract xxx
-It is fun? Yes.

And so on. Sounds harsh, but those are the days.

Which chess site does have a comparable rating to ELO? I have yet to find one. I am always rated 200-300 points above.

Agreed, bullet and blitz are way too dominant.

The way tournaments are set up doesn't help either. It effectively encourages players to not use the time available to them, which very negatively affects especially the longer time control tournaments. This is the main reason I rarely play tournaments on Lichess.

Fast decisions are a necessary part of life and logic. Dismissing speed chess means that you lose out on the those benefits. Play speed chess against a computer and win - does that mean your chess skills are not any good? Demeaning speed chess players does not improve the quality of chess on Lichess! Your post is just to get responses - poor way of doing it. Rapid chess should be at the olympics since it is more entertaining to watch than 3 hour chess. Try getting rid of the cheaters instead of dismissing speed chess.

2300-2400 Blitz players play real quality chess. My target is to get 2300 blitz.

If I may add to the conversation, I wonder what weight should be given to the fact that most players have highly comparable ratings in bullet, blitz and classic time controls, when discussing the decades-old argument that "speed chess is not actual chess". If ratings achieved in longer time controls are reflected in shorter ones, doesn't it indicate that both types of chess *mostly* rely on the same set of skills?

Which "minimum of quality" are we talking about, @Sarg0n ?

Ok, your opponents sometimes blunder on move 10-15, especially if they are 200 points lower rated than you are.
You can then feel haughty, that they failed to take the necessary time.

At the same time, you will sometimes blunder on move 50, perhaps even in a good position..
.. but rather than going "Ok, my time management was shit", you'll STILL feel haughty - that they merely flagged you, weren't better at all, and it was immoral. Or something.

lichess.org/h8OAoRP2/black/
In this game, you manage to get 9(!) Blunders. All of them happen from move 38 onwards. Is this the minimum of quality?

Both of you make an array of laughable mistakes in this ending, because neither of you has the time to appreciate what's going on, and you just kinda have to make moves.
What if you had played faster in the Opening/Middlegame? Perhaps you would have blundered on move 15, and gotten laughed out of the room. Perhaps you would have 3:30 on the clock by move 40 (rather than 1:30), and could just smoothly outplay your opponent in the Rook endgame. Would that be less "quality"?

With 30s on the clock, you'll play 68..b2, and go home the winner. You had 10s left instead, misplayed, and then even proceeded to flag.
If you save yourself those 20 seconds, by making moves quickly earlier in the game, sometimes you'll blunder in the opening. It happens. But perhaps your move 50+ will be less of an RNG mess then, and you actually get to calculate in an endgame.

The only thing that is able to tell which approach of the two is actually superior, is RATING. The better approach will win the majority of time, simple as that.
2200-2300 Lichess Blitz is astonishingly low for a 2200 FIDE (dnno if that's your current rating, but CM implies you at least had it once), which heavily implies that your current approach is rather awful.
Blundering on move 50 isn't any "better" than doing so on move 15 (usually it's far worse, as you will be unable to bring the game back at that point); you should aim to minimize blunders as a whole.
As written in the classic 'Chess for Tigers' - if you don't lose as many games to playing too fast (ie blundering early), as you do to playing too slow (ie blundering in time trouble), you need to play faster.

Being proud of "outplaying" an opponent while investing 2-3x their time/move, and then "just" getting flagged / blundering in the endgame.. will get you nowhere. Try to play the early part of the game quicker, to improve :)

P.S. It's hilarious to me, how someone that hates timescrambles appears to exclusively play 5+0, rather than 3+2. Absolutely senseless.

I got nothing to say I ain’t said before. I rest my case.