Forgot password?
Not a tactician? Register here.
|
| Date | From | Message |
| 2008, Jul 05 |
RagingSurf |
NewLook -- I agree and just try to solve at my own pace, but I find myself trying to beat the CTS clock and then make mistakes. I do not like the clock, but I have real problems at high speed so I just keep plodding along hoping my tactical eye will improve. I have suggested to the operators that they not penalise you for a correct answer and just give you a zero. Ultimately, you get it right or you do not in chess and life. Some of take a bit longer. But the point is to practice a habit correctly and then speed it up. Here, they speed it up, and hopefully you get it right. As far as cheating,... What's the point?
Anyway Matie, good note. |
| 2008, Jul 05 |
TheBishopGod |
Newlook is right.
I just wish I had his accuracy percentage.
I'm fighting for 70% |
| 2008, Jul 04 |
newlook |
I think that the current time controls encourage the bad habit of moving too quickly. I have no problem with rewarding fast solutions, but having 10 seconds as the upper limit doesn't serve us well. The result is that people who want to improve their chess would be best served by ignoring the time controls and rating system altogether. Do tactics problems often, at your own natural pace, and your average speed will improve over time as your pattern recognition improves.
As for cheating, why should we care? If some idiot is using Fritz, then the rating applies to Fritz. It's silly to use your rating here to brag, so it's equally silly to design the rating system to protect bragging rights. |
| 2008, Jul 04 |
pollock |
I think 1800 ELO is alot easier than 1800 at cts> Im Tomohawk is 1800 and he is very good :) |
| 2008, Jul 04 |
TheBishopGod |
Biike...I am an adult and you are right.
Maybe at CTS I can get to 1800 but for an 1800 elo that might take a few more years....considering I play in two tournaments a year.
Regardless...Untill I reach 1800 my only study "should" be tactics study.(I say "should" because I tend to go over master games a lot)
Has anyone seen my pants? |
| 2008, Jul 04 |
biike |
thebishopgod, i think its a possibillity(if you work very hard to get your cts rating that high in a year but i doubt your elo can get that hugh.even more so if your an adult. |
| 2008, Jul 04 |
TheBishopGod |
Biike...I'm 1400 elo and 1400 CTS.
I'm hoping for 1800 this time next year.
Both in elo and CTS. |
| 2008, Jul 04 |
impact6 |
hey guys, i recently just got back into chess and was looking for a way to improve my tactical ability, the funamentals of chess. Does this site actually improve tactical vision or is it just a way to see your rating judging on how fast you can recognize patterns... Please let me know your imput on this.
THis server is great btw |
| 2008, Jul 04 |
biike |
are you talkig 1400 elo or 1400 cts? 1800 cts or 1800 elo? |
| 2008, Jul 03 |
TheBishopGod |
Ragingsurf said it all.
I myself have recently put all of my books(almost 200) into storage.
I will leave them there untill I can finish my tactics study and finally get to 1800. Then and only then will those books benefit me.
I split my tactics training up between CTS and setting them up on a real board.
I'm 1400 now...so in a year 1800? |
| 2008, Jul 03 |
RagingSurf |
Dear Bike,
I would suggest that if you want to really improve and beat all your buddies or girlfriends, dad, or whomever, then take ALL your DVD's, all your books on Modern Chess Strategy, Collections of My Great Predecessors, etc... and give them to a local library or simply bin them.
Go out and buy a copy of Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. Set up every position on an old fashion board with real pieces. TURN OFF your computer engine and engage your CARBON brain. Go through EVERY position and once you have done this, do it again, and again and again, until you can go through the book blind without a set and also in a couple of sittings.
This is Serious Mental Masturbation.
And I know many will laugh and attempt to take the piss out of you; and me for posting this message.
But I have done the above, but with another book by Averbakh, Tactics for the Advanced Player that IM Malcolm Pein gave me in London. I went through every position, and put every position on the board, and then I put every position into a dbase and then I printed out all of them onto cards. Again, Serious Mental Masturbation.
I went to the Fischer book after I did the above, because I realised that I missed the basics in fast games or under pressure. I am on this server, because I STILL have not solved this problem. My rating was an elo of slightly under 1900 when I started this exercise. There are limited chances to play for me. We have very few FM’s even, but I have been able to change my game from double fianchetto openings to wide OPEN attacking chess with no fear and a whole lot more fun and I am on the way toward becoming a absurdly strong Candidate Master.
It might take you over a year or two to achieve this, but once you have done it, you will really never go back to those Modern Chess Strategy books, DVD’s, and you will wonder why a chess engine is anything but a crutch and bane to your further growth in chess.
The downside of the above is that you may take a slogging for a few months or even a year, but then you will see a steady and sure improvement that no one can stop. You will know you are making progress when your friends no longer want to play blitz with you and the players who were in a class better then you do not want to play but want to know what you have been studying, i.e. what’s your secret Bike.
When this happens, tell them a little old wizard from OZ gave you a secret formula, but it’s a dirty word and only if you ask me nicely will I tell you it. I am sure you guessed it by now, W-O-R-K.
As I said in the beginning get rid of those other books, until you can see the basic tactics and more importantly those that your opponent is threatening.
It is VERY important to put them on a REAL Chess Board and without an Engine. Because in real life you will be sitting across from an opponent with real pieces and a real board and clock that is really ticking and oh, one more thing, with a REAL Opponent who wants to take your Big Bike Head off.
Signed humbly,
The RagingSurf, aka The Wizard of Oz.
p.s. A good set of books on tactics is/are the Istvan Pongo two volume series of Tactics. He makes a real effort to explain each type of position and why they lead to a tactical opportunity. As does the Averbakh book. For the money, they are the best on the market. But try the Fischer book first. It is handy and you can read it on a tram, bus, or even the loo, but then watch out for those red-back spiders.
|
| 2008, Jul 03 |
biike |
thanks guys. |
| 2008, Jul 02 |
limbo696 |
Is the server still being actively maintained? I love this site but my main complaint is that many of the problems should contain more moves. It would be nice if we could have a bunch of admins improve these problems. |
| 2008, Jul 02 |
Hexalingual |
biike - From early May till now, you seem to have increased your accuracy (current accuracy, not your cumulative over all problems ever solved) from about 71 to 75%. That's a substantial increase, and anyone would expect your numerical rating to show a temporary dip. I think what's got you down is that you're not seeing it in the numbers reported by CTS: your overall accuracy is changing much more slowly because it's averaged over your entire history, so all you're seeing is a slight temporary rating slip. You're improving; you just don't know it. (I guess I'm really just rephrasing what tomohawk already said.) |
| 2008, Jul 01 |
pollock |
CTS improves blitz skill and fast calculation of simple variations :). If want to work on deep visualization skills \ analytical skills can go elsewhere. |
| 2008, Jul 01 |
tomohawk |
Hi biike, My rating is up about 50 points since I started here. I am sure others have bigger improvements, but until they tell you their secrets, I will tell you mine. First, I ignored the rating for awhile, and concentrated on accuracy. As expected, my rating went down. Funny thing about studying chess, my experience is that real growth normally starts with a worsening of results. I think it is that way because so much of chess is the application of what you know, rather than the knowledge itself. You have to apply the knowledge a lot of times before it becomes second nature. Before then, your brain is just getting in the way (trying to apply it incorrectly or applying it in the wrong situations), if you know what I mean. Anyway, what I did was when I got a problem wrong - and some of the times when I got them right - I would try to solve them unrated. Even if I solved it on the second try, or I didn't, I would look up the answer. If I didn't understand why some move not specified in the answer page didn't work, I would take a careful look at it, and even stick it into Fritz at that point to try and figure out what the heck was going on. Now I am pretty sure that if I went back to 80% solving rate, my rating here would be roughly 1950, but I would rather completely understand each problem than be picking forcing moves at semi-random and hoping that they were the right answer. Sorry for the length of response, but I felt your question was a good one and deserved a detailed answer. |
| 2008, Jul 01 |
biike |
over the last 2 months my rating hasnt improved at all.ive been at 1640-1650 for two months now.has anybody had a similar experience and what methods were used to increase your rating. |
| 2008, Jul 01 |
richardct |
chessdog: The chesstempo problem set has changed dramatically since you last used the site in early may (assuming you are chessdog on both sites). As tomohawk (who was quite critical of chesstempo in the past) points out, the problem set improvements make the site a lot more fun.
bishopgod: No, I'm not paying them :-) Some of the comments are from people who have used CTS well before chesstempo was around, chesstempo does have premium features which users can pay for, but all the features available in the past are still free (and will remain so). I don't think there is a war, I've responded to a few criticisms of chesstempo that I think were valid in the past but are no longer. I think CTS is an excellent site, especially if you want to do thousands of problems very quickly.
Richard (chesstempo admin).
|
| 2008, Jul 01 |
TheBishopGod |
If you like chesstempo and mating combinations go there.
If not stay here...
If you have left then go and be quiet...
MAN ALIVE IS RICHARD PAYING THESE DUDES? |
| 2008, Jul 01 |
TheBishopGod |
All this talk of two websites is making me look at my bookshelf again.
Ah yes....1001 by Reinfeld.
DUDES!! WHO CARES WHAT SITE IS BETTER?
MAN ALIVE!!
Thank GOD I still have books.
"The great CTS/Richard wars.....they drove the mass to study books" |
| 2008, Jul 01 |
slacker00 |
tomohawk, I agree that both sites are great. There is no reason for this outcry for war or whatever nonsense. I've been defending CT because I can see the work that richard is putting into that place. Maybe just my way of saying "Job well done, keep it up!". People saying that CT sucks, grow up or else give some intelligent criticism. As for criticism of CTS, it is what it is, love it or leave. Peace, out. |
| 2008, Jul 01 |
TheBishopGod |
Does anyone notice a chesstempo and CTS war going on?
It's like chesstempo is sending dudes here to say something bad about CTS....but why bother?...is chesstempo going to charge a fee to use chesstempo?
Why all the promoting of chesstempo and degrading of CTS?
In the end there will always be a free website to do tactics...
Get a life guys. Chesstempo sucks btw. |
| 2008, Jul 01 |
exigentsky |
That is 3-5 problems in less than 3 seconds. I often have to do 7-10 or more when I am just barely solving the problems. |
| 2008, Jul 01 |
exigentsky |
The RD system is TERRIBLE on this site. It rewards those who work less. I'm at an RD of 14 and I need to do 3-5 problems just to raise my rating 1 measly point. If I wait a week, I can raise it 5 points with a single problem and quickly get to a high rating. It's a broken and backwards system. It should be like OTB chess. Once a player is no longer provisional, the RD is the same for everyone. Thus if a 1500 player with 100 games in the last month plays against a 1500 with 5 games in the last month, a win would affect each equally. As it stands, its very discouraging and pretty ridiculous. |
| 2008, Jul 01 |
chessdog |
chesstempo sucks...dont waste your time |
| 2008, Jun 30 |
tomohawk |
Thanks, slacker00. Also thanks to jj23 for pointing out the improvements at Chesstempo. The site is no longer frustrating, but fun and useful. The problems at Chesstempo seem deeper than here, but I think both sites are useful complements to each other. This one seems to revolve more around spotting familiar tactical themes, while Chesstempo seems more concerned with analysing longer, more complicated lines of analysis, based on what I have seen there thus far. |
| 2008, Jun 29 |
TheBishopGod |
I'll check out the new problem set.
Sometimes it's nice just to win a pawn. |
| 2008, Jun 29 |
richardct |
BishopGod: I assume it is some time since you've done problems on Chess Tempo. Most of the multiple winning line issues have been resolved recently and the number of mates have been drastically reduced and now only form about 25% of the problem set.
Richard (Chess Tempo Admin)
|
| 2008, Jun 29 |
TheBishopGod |
And....Is this site abandoned?
And if so...will it one day be gone or run forever? |
| 2008, Jun 29 |
TheBishopGod |
chesstempo blows....I did 500 positions over there and all i got was angry.
-There are way too many mating attacks...and...when you clearly can win a rook or queen you are told you are wrong cause it was a mate in 4.
-Too many of the positions have multiple winning ways.
-Also...the ratings there are 500 points too high!!
I'm 1300 here...at yahoo...at Gameknot...and in USCF...but at chesstempo i'm 1900.
I really wanted to use chesstempo as my tactics site due to it being new and the owner is still running it...unlike here at CTS, but I can't stand every position being a mate. |
| 2008, Jun 29 |
slacker00 |
tomohawk, nice job getting to #2 on the standard (untimed) list over on ChessTempo.com. I just scratched my way up to #4. I still challenge everyone who reads this to try to knock me down a rung. :) |
| 2008, Jun 28 |
tomohawk |
I don't know if the problems come from real games or not but some definitely come from alternate variations of well-known games. Recently I saw a position that came from analysis of a variation on Kasparov v Lautier, Linares 1994. There are also quite a few problems devoted to unplayed variations in the amazing Kasparov v Topalov, Wijk aan Zee 1999. I have seen three or four of those, at least.
|
| 2008, Jun 28 |
Wolfgang |
The FICS chess server seems to be the only one, who is free AND attended by GMs. But compared to ICC and playchess only very few come.
I know there is a guest account on playchess, but then you don't have a rating and no nick and won't get decent opposition.
And yes I read, the problems don't come out of real games. |
| 2008, Jun 28 |
Chessdoom |
Is it true all problems are simulated, or do they all come out of matches? Or is this slightly a dumb question... well nvm. Does any1 now where you can play online for free? where GM come? |
| 2008, Jun 28 |
Wolfgang |
Maybe this question has been asked before, but how many problems do you usually do, if you want to improve your rating here?
I have a limit of about 70. After completing that many problems I get careless and my rating decreases fast.
So what about you? |
| 2008, Jun 28 |
Hexalingual |
If anyone is interested in seeing how well CTS ratings correlate with standard or blitz game ratings on Internet Chess Club, it's possible to view a couple of graphs at
http://hexalingual.googlepages.com/ICCCTSCorrelatio n.pdf
|
| 2008, Jun 28 |
Markusgoth |
My previous public message is a reply for Gambiiti and shajbat. |
| 2008, Jun 28 |
Markusgoth |
The change of RD on CTS varies too fast on the lower
ends while varies too slowly on the higher ends. The change
on RD below 25 is too abrupt. Players who play 300+ problems
per day typically have narrow ranges of rating, but that also
means the rating basis becomes larger, and have higher
correlation to the Bayesian regression line obtained within a
certain time frame.
Even though, a lower bound on RD between 15 to 20 is also
recommended, which will correspond to a player's change more
accurately. But a better method, is to make the most
appropriate choice of the prior distribution.
I have sent a message (with more details) to the operator addressing the issue.
You may follow this link for more information on Bayesian classification, which is currently applied in a simplified version on computing RD on this site:
http://research.microsoft.com/~cmbishop/downlo ads/Bishop-NATO-Bayes.pdf |
| 2008, Jun 28 |
RagingSurf |
2-Try: Bike & Tomohawk, "I do think that the time penalty is wrong. It forces you to make a RE-Action, instead of too think. In this sense, you are absolutely right Tomohawk, or rather I am of the same opinion as you. But noone forces you too REACT, you can of course NOT react, but take your time and think about the problem and get it right. Unfortunately, you lose points for this approach. But if you are using the CTS to improve then who cares??? I took down a problem on paper and put it on the board, because the solution appealed to me in one case and in another I found what I felt was an improvement although, my solution took 3 moves longer it was more elegant. (Dr. Lasker, that great Berlin player of almost a hundred years ago would dissapprove of course, but perhaps Alekhine or Stein would not.) Be that as it may, you can just forget the numbers and solve the problems at your own speed and even with a chess board. Obviously, this will slow you down, but if the point is to learn, then MY point is too do it right. CTS gives you an excellent opportunity to learn. How you use the tool and your results are your responsibility."
Kind Regards
OZ |
| 2008, Jun 28 |
RagingSurf |
Bike & Tomohawk,.... I am a Candidate Master in OTB, but do NOT study openings, ... I pay for this occassionally, with a 10 move trap or less as I play a rather OPEN game. But in general my losses are due to judgement errors and stupid mistakes on my part AND not my openings or my analysis at the board. The advantage of this server,... is that it is timed and like life you are running on a clock. For me the CTS is a very valuable tool as I (and I imagine many other players), miss the simple tactical tricks or moves that make are Right IN Front of our noses. Or we simply forget that chess is NOT solitaire and our opponent is also swithched on to win.
I am very greatful for the method and little mistake problems that are here, because being an optimist I tend to forget that my opponent is playing too. Especially at Blitz which I am probably the World Champion Loser at,... I realise their might be others who want the title, but then you have to challenge me and I assure you that I shall succeed in losing more blitz games then you anywhere and anyplace,...
Forgive the sarcasim,...
My blitz is now approaching my OTB, but basically, I have been doing problems like the ones on this server and some enormously simple tactical error sets of problems for the last 6 months on a regular basis because I Hate myself for missing the simple tactical shots,...
I do not like the time limits on the problems, but I realise it is just MY weaknesses as a tactician which I hope that by doing these exercises my tactical eye will improve. I do not really care about the percentages,... although it would be nice to have a better rating (perhaps using a mouse would help vs. a touch pad), but that is my problem and not CTS.
If I had one suggestion, it would be that if you get the problem right you would not receive a penalty in points or other. It seems a bit OVER to get penalised for getting the problem right and still lose points.
Again, it is only my humble opinion. I think CTS is great. Maybe, I can eliminate my stupid little mistakes. |
| 2008, Jun 28 |
gambiitti |
i think the reason to that question is that the rd goes up linearly over time, but decays exponentially. so doing more problems in big bursts rather than steadily gives you higher average rd for the same amount of problems done. |
| 2008, Jun 27 |
Shajbat |
The rating system here seems a bit odd. I mean if a tactician comes here everyday then the increments and decrements are not that massive. However, if a tactician comes here every now and then, the increments and decrements become massive. How is the visit interval related to rating? This is very odd. |
| 2008, Jun 27 |
Wolfgang |
At my last logins there were times the next tactic did not load and after I waited or refreshed I got the "Bad luck- you lost" message. And the site seems to be slower than usual.
Does anybody face the same problem these days? |
| 2008, Jun 27 |
TheBishopGod |
urine |
| 2008, Jun 27 |
biike |
on a different note over the last 2 months my rating hasnt improved at all.ive been at 1640-1650 for two months now.has anybody had a similar experience and what methods were used to increase your rating. |
| 2008, Jun 27 |
biike |
i never meant to imply that i only train my tactical vision.i play and review my games and grandmaster games as well.i try to go to at least 6 tournaments a year.plus theres opening preparation and book study.i simply wanted to see if anyone had improved by just studying tactics. if you improve but also do book study the improvement can be attributed to book study . i wanted to see if anyone had a substantial rating increasement (otb) due to just tactical study. |
| 2008, Jun 27 |
slacker00 |
biike, I kinda agree with tomohawk. Tactics on here are a good start, but there are many other skills necessary to win at chess. Endings are very important, even at an intermediate club game if you know an endgame simplifies into a win, it's basically like finding a forced mate. Openings, to a point. I don't endorse memorizing openings, but understanding enough concepts to "survive" an opening against someone who relies purely on memorization. Positional play is very important and something that tactics problems can never really explore. Also, just game comfort, being comfortable adjusting to the game as it's being played. Post-mortem analysis is also key, going over your games to see where the weaknesses lie. So, you can see that tactics really is just the beginning to playing strong all-around chess. But, it's a great start. |
| 2008, Jun 26 |
gambiitti |
from my experience you can practice here all day and play just plain dumb in a real game. tactical proficiency has no value when you get killed before getting into a position to use them |
| 2008, Jun 26 |
pkendal |
@biike
I improved rapidly OTB when doing a large number of these problems per day. I was also playing a lot of online blitz, but I found that I only started improving at the blitz after doing a lot of these problems too. So no, I don't think you're wasting your time, as long as you don't define "doing chess problems on the internet" as a time-waster.... |
| 2008, Jun 26 |
tomohawk |
@biike I am sorry that I cannot answer your question. I doubt that anyone can. Even if it were true that someone got better solely by using CTS, that person isn't you, and therefore what got them better may not work for you. You are a unique person! Be happy about that!
But seriously, doing just one thing to get better at chess seems very unlikely to me. Do you play regularly OTB? Do you analyse your games after you play them? Do you study endgames, openings, games collections?
Players tend to know more positions the stronger they are. CTS would certainly expose you to a lot of positions. Practicing analysing is a skill that all players need to do. But I do think that just looking at a position for five seconds then guessing what move "looks right" isn't very helpful for OTB chess. CTS's weakness is that almost every position has something happening. That means you can just pick some forcing-looking move and odds are that this move is right. In a real game, that is suicide. Further, you can pick a move that wins, but not see the followup as CTS does not always ask you to find the answer to tricky defenses. As you can imagine, your opponents have a big incentive to find those tricky defenses. Their very chess lives depend upon it. So to summarize: do some CTS, but do other things, too. And make sure that you understand all of the problems you get right, as well as the ones you get wrong on CTS. That's my suggestion. :-) |
| 2008, Jun 26 |
biike |
ive done 31500 problems here and want to make sure im not just wasting my time.does anyone have any real success stories about serious otb rating improvement based solely on cts training?
|
| 2008, Jun 25 |
TheBishopGod |
Is this site forever?
I read that the owners abandoned the site?
Will it one day shut down or run forever? |
| 2008, Jun 24 |
Hexalingual |
I'd like to do some statistical correlations between improvement at CTS and other measures of chess performance. Based on modeling I've already done, I'll have to track for at least 6 months to average out short-term fluctuations. If anyone wants to help, please email me as much of the following that you can: your CTS handle; USCF and/or FIDE member #; ICC and/or FICS handle; Chess Tempo handle; and whether you use additional chess training methods, esp. for tactics (e.g., CT-ART, Polgar book etc). Hexalingual at gmail dot com. All information would be used for research purposes only. Thanks in advance. |
| 2008, Jun 24 |
Tacto |
Just becuase it isn't 100% clear that something is the best move doesn't make it bad. Despite that a lot of the ambiguity has been removed.
I'd rather do a standard problem with a few decent solutions and learn why which is better and then learn to identify those than sit here and go "omg up a pawn go for it" and learn nothing.
I'd rather improve. ChessTempo are for those who actually want to learn. Don't make excuses. |
| 2008, Jun 22 |
slacker00 |
Wormwood, can you give a specific problem number? I've been playing over there and haven't had any problems like that recently. I know that was a problem on the highest rated problems before the last update. |
| 2008, Jun 22 |
richardct |
Hi wormwood, sometimes it can be hard to tell if a move is ambiguous without plugging it into a chess engine. I had a look at your recent attempts on chess tempo and you had 4 problems marked wrong. Looking at the ones you got wrong in an engine, it appears you were not playing ambiguous moves just wrong moves :-) I can go into details on the actual moves and what was wrong them if you think you'd find it useful.
The problem set is still not perfect but it is certainly vastly improved since the last time you used the site.
Regards,
Richard. (chesstempo admin)
|
| 2008, Jun 22 |
wormwood |
just checked chesstempo yet once again. can't see any difference in the quality of the problem set, there's still plenty of ambiguous moves around. just like there has been from day one. |
| 2008, Jun 22 |
Tacto |
ChessTempo.com is an awesome website. They have now something that tells you there is a better move isntead of failing you. So you can learn a lot from it. Especially the longer time controls sometimes. Big problem set, and a big board etc a lot of features that helps. |
| 2008, Jun 22 |
tomohawk |
@jj23 Thanks a lot for the info, I will check out ChessTempo again.
@TheBishopGod My thoughts exactly. Decision time in chess should be proportional to the impact of the decision. In other words, if the difference between two moves is large, then players should spend a lot of time on those decisions if they need to. When the choice is between say mate in four and +6.6, that isn't much of a difference as you are likely to win more than 99% with such a huge edge. Therefore wasting time on such decisions is just that ... a waste of time. |
| 2008, Jun 22 |
TheBishopGod |
Tomohawk is right.
I'm sick of chess sites and books giving a position which you try to solve and...."oh sorry...you taking that queen/rook/whatever, is wrong. It's a mate in 7...you didn't see that?"
"uh no...I figured a self respecting opponent would resign after I took there Queen" |
| 2008, Jun 22 |
jj23 |
tomohawk: If that is your only reason for not using chesstempo, you should probably give it another go. Problem set changes made last week have fixed the ambiguity issues you refer to.
|
| 2008, Jun 22 |
wormwood |
well tacto, I don't know who you are, but from 1500 to 1600 sounds like the normal initial rating increase which you get when you start here. it's due to getting used to how the system works. - about my being at 1600, well, I stopped serious training on CTS a year and a half ago. now I do only a couple of problems every now and then, just for fun. nothing more. I don't expect any progress from so little training, it's just for fun. |
| 2008, Jun 21 |
tomohawk |
The chesstempo site isn't as good, otherwise I would give their non-timed mode a try. Many of their problems have multiple correct solutions. It is annoying to play a move that wins a clear rook only to find out that the solution is wrong because there is mate in four. |
| 2008, Jun 21 |
slacker00 |
Anyone who plays chess is ok in my book. I'll admit this whole accuracy thing got me a little riled up because I firmly believe only computers can solve problems 100% accurately. I am human. For those that are going for 99% or whatever, you probably aren't attempting problems that are challenging enough for your skill level. To tell me that if I'm "just guessing" when I'm doing 80% or whatever is insulting to me because I am trying to make an effort and use my best judgment to make a move within 3-10 seconds. Like it or not, that's how this site is set up. It's like playing g/5 blitz in the park and always losing on time, then complaining that the winning player is "just guessing". Well, playing g/5 doesn't allow for a ton of deep analysis of positions. That's just the way it is. For those that enjoy untimed problems, chesstempo.com has that option. I'm currently 5th on the leaderboard over there for untimed mode and I challenge all of you to knock me out of that position. ;) I know at least half of you guys probably have the skills to do it. Peace, my chess playing brothers! |
| 2008, Jun 21 |
Tacto |
Wormwood. My accuracy is LOW and I do improve. We met on redhotpawn.
I have reached 1640 on here and you were around the 1600-1630 range when we met and at that time I was lower than 1500. My accuracy has always been the same.
Lastly, my FICS blitz rating is about 1650(FICS being tough) on ChessCube etc I am much higher. I am about 2000 on chesscube.
I have improved lots despite the low accuracy. |
| 2008, Jun 21 |
tomohawk |
hexalingual That was very interesting. Thanks for taking the time out to do the analysis. |
| 2008, Jun 21 |
Hexalingual |
605 problems per rating point increase
(ranging from 123 to 1667 probs/rating pt)
That’s the average obtained by linear regression for 10 very active tacticians, based on data collected over the past 6 months (minimum 10K problems solved over this period). Since these tacticians have all solved at least 25K problems, their ratings are changing slowly, so I assumed that rating is approximately a linear function of both # solved and accuracy (this accounts for the effect of changes in accuracy over the period). The tactician rating range was 1277-1844, and the accuracy range 75% to 96%.
The number of problems per rating point increase shows a slight negative correlation with both rating and accuracy, i.e., the trend is that higher-rated and/or higher-accuracy players need fewer problems to gain a rating point. All tacticians were improving on average, though. This is based on only 10 tacticians; a larger sample size is needed to really confirm these results. As with all human data, there’s a lot of scatter.
This is of course just a mathematical model based on assumptions which can certainly be questioned. But anyway, I hope this is of interest to some of you.
|
| 2008, Jun 21 |
dogWaste |
peace brothers |
| 2008, Jun 21 |
dktransform |
just checked in. im back east seeing my dad, who has cancer, and then my older mother. thanks for comments. latter, dk ill copy text here, and along the way respond hopefully appropriately. for now, all i can say is, time will tell, and i do 1575 to 1640 at sustained RD ALL the time in guest sessions, but ask that no one take my word for it. when i get to 50,000, i'll revert from 98.5% to 90.00% and my game will be to see how high i can get at THAT rate hereafter. no big deals. lets all enjoy this and wish you all well. |
| 2008, Jun 20 |
Markusgoth |
p54291. |
| 2008, Jun 20 |
Wolfgang |
The small number behind your and your problem's rating is called RD.
"What RD represents
The Ratings Deviation is used to measure how much a tactician's current rating should be trusted. A high RD indicates that the tactician may not be competing frequently or that the tactician has not solved very many problems yet at the current rating level. A low RD indicates that the tactician's rating is fairly well established. This is described in more detail below under RD Interpretation. " |
| 2008, Jun 20 |
Markusgoth |
Spain and Turkey performs very well recently on CTS... a bit unexpected. Coincidentally, I will be in Madrid in mid-July. |
| 2008, Jun 20 |
Markusgoth |
To Stormcrow: That's RD. |
| 2008, Jun 20 |
Stormcrow |
When I am doing tactics, sometimes behind my rating or the problem's rating, there is displayed a small number. What is this? |
| 2008, Jun 20 |
tomohawk |
@wormwood I play for accuracy (I'm around 92%). My rating has gone from the 1800-1850 range to 1850-1900. I think that my speed is getting better, but mostly it is because doing problems slowly increasing the chances of remembering the solutions, especially since I take a look at alternate variations, check out why certain bad moves don't work, stuff like that. I would say about 20% of the problems I am getting I absolutely recall the solution, and another 20% or so I am very certain about the right move, but not with 100% certainty (so I have to analyse those, albeit only the "correct" variation).
I am not certain that remembering the solutions to the more difficult problems is good or not. It may be better if I could forget all of the more complex solutions (which are generally more than recognizing a useful pattern) and just get faster and faster analysing the problems from scratch. I am just not sure either way. |
| 2008, Jun 20 |
gambiitti |
you get better when you get better. staring at ratings or accuracies won't speed it up one bit |
| 2008, Jun 20 |
biike |
wormwood- you simply stated someone couldnt make there rating go up without sacrificing rating.there hast to be a crossroads between playing for accuracy and playing for rating.some where between 75% and 85 % accuracy that also gives you rating increase over time.high accuracy users rating arent improving.high rating users accuracy arent improving there has to be a crossroads where both improve. |
| 2008, Jun 19 |
karamazov1002 |
This discussion between accuracy and speed seems to be an ongoing issue. Actually, I think dktransform has a point when talking about recognising the easier patterns accurately, I still believe that these simple patterns should be remembered quickly and accurately. The issue with speed should be a problem at the higher end of the rating scale as these problems are not just remembering patterns but involve recalling or 'seeing' complex patterns. |
| 2008, Jun 19 |
wormwood |
it's simply the best bang for a buck approach. and if you don't believe me (and I know you don't, as I've had this same discussion many many times over the years), you can check out the rankings. when you spend a long time here, you'll notice that the low % people don't improve after the initial months. and none of the high-tries users with low percentage have improved after 20K problems. |
| 2008, Jun 19 |
wormwood |
people who do lower rated problems with a better accuracy than others, do better at higher rated problems as well. -if someone does 1600-problems at 95%, it doesn't mean he can't do 1800-problems. on the contrary, that person can break 1800 at will if he trades success rate for rating. all people doing high accuracy know this, because we've experienced first hand how much raising your accuracy sets you back rating wise. which is roughly 100 points per 10%, with some individual variance. so why are we doing it? well because we've experimented on various ways of training, and observed that high accuracy gives you best progress over time. |
| 2008, Jun 19 |
Wolfgang |
@biike, that's just what I told them earlier. :-)
But guys, please calm down, no need to insult anybody here. A little more patience and equanimity and less arrogance would be good for some of you. |
| 2008, Jun 19 |
biike |
tournament*
|
| 2008, Jun 19 |
biike |
chessdog how do u expect to calculate quickly in a chess tournaent if you dont learn to manage your time in your training.also if your always aiming for high accuracy and sacrifice rating how do you expect the quality of the problem to change.who cares if you get every 1400 level tactic problem rite if you cant see any of the level 1800 tactic problems? |
| 2008, Jun 19 |
chessdog |
ya'll still aint getting it... yes, "time" does matter when your playing a "timed" game...time doesnt matter when you are practicing and learning about the game...which you then will take the gained knowledge and skill with you into your game...which will result in quicker and more accurate decisions (you'll be faster). now plz excuse me while i go kill myself!!! |
| 2008, Jun 19 |
chessdog |
is everyone stupid? |
| 2008, Jun 19 |
slacker00 |
chessdog & dktranform: I'm not sure what kind of chess tournaments you are talking about, do they not have clocks? At the GM level, they play with a clock, whether or not you will admit to that. Even postal chess has some kind of time limits, although I imagine that's what kind of chess you guys aim to play because regular tournaments do not allow you to take the board to the beach. Yes, I have played real chess tournaments and my biggest win was against a master level player and the only reason I won is because he got into time trouble and made some blunders. You guys are just being silly saying that time doesn't matter whatsoever, because regular chess tournaments are played with clocks, no offense. |
| 2008, Jun 18 |
chessdog |
@biike-dude, your an idiot! DK is right and his method is solid. his idea (and mine and many others) here is to practice accurate thinking...along with studying books and software of many different aspects of chess in order to have a complete knowledge of the game. in this way we learn and improve over time! if you had any brains at all you would be embarrassed and ashamed of your remarks...if not then just keep guessing and clicking on the first possible variation you see...you'll be a grandmaster in no time! |
| 2008, Jun 17 |
unknownSHOUSKE |
i hope that this tactics system will improve my game dramatically because im tired of losing all of the time. |
| 2008, Jun 17 |
wormwood |
yep, bill shankly it was. :) |
| 2008, Jun 17 |
karamazov1002 |
wormwood: Is that saying from the late Bill Shankly, Legendary Liverpool FC manager? |
| 2008, Jun 16 |
FARKINDAMIYIZ |
percentage is important.but 1.the average of the problems 2.time are also important. |
| 2008, Jun 15 |
biike |
i doubt dktransforms method.in fact i dobt his rating will ever hit 1600. |
| 2008, Jun 15 |
FARKINDAMIYIZ |
dktransform the best problem u make in your latest actions is 1505. what r u talking about.
|
| 2008, Jun 14 |
Hexalingual |
gambiitti - thanks for helping me out of a mental rut. So obvious I can't believe I stared at the problem and didn't see it... |
| 2008, Jun 14 |
gambiitti |
hexa: b4 is targeted by the knight, so you need to check first and go to b1 |
| 2008, Jun 14 |
Hexalingual |
I don't get p01255. Why Rc1+? I thought Rb4, sacrifice the rook, then queen one of the pawns. Could someone explain why that's wrong? (Sorry to keep asking stupid questions; I'm one of those "adult beginners".) |
| 2008, Jun 14 |
wormwood |
chess isn't a matter of life or death, it's much more important than that! :) |
| 2008, Jun 14 |
gambiitti |
heheh, you guys are really enthusiastic about chess. too much, even... cool down, it's just chess! |
| 2008, Jun 14 |
dktransform |
@vita. wormwood is way too correct. 1350 at 71% is guessing, whatever the reason. this is not real chess, and not to offend, but really you are just kidding yourself. have you ever been to a high level chess tournament, not to play, but to watch? you see this same, tense, careful, thoughtful, ultra deliberate super finicky drive to make each decision the best. 3 out of 10 wrong means you are guessing. |
| 2008, Jun 14 |
dktransform |
HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, HUGE!!!!!!!!! who here is not aware that Informant has finally released the best 1000 games of informant? I have an old copy of the best, 640 Golden Games, and treasure that book greatly. It is a jewel. Only the new version is annotated. OMG. i ordered my copy the night before my very early flight back to NJ/metro NY... check it out. very expensive, but a great investment, if you ask me: http://www.sahovski.co.yu/products/other/latest.php?id= 349 1000 The Best of the Best |
Please sign in as registered tactician to post a message. |