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. |
