Forgot password?
Not a tactician?
Register here.
|
| Date | From | Message |
| 2010, Jul 28 |
gorookyourself |
UriBlass, Thanks for the info. |
| 2010, Jul 28 |
UriBlass |
I have outside rating out of CTS that is between 2000
and 2100(both fide rating and israeli rating) and there
was no significant change in my OTB rating from the
time that I started CTS)
I started in 25.9.2008
My
CTS rating was
25.9.2008 1525 43 tries(40 of them
correct)
25.9.2008 1601 214 tries 89%
I understood
that I need to guess to improve my rating
26.9.2008
1650 787 tries 79%
27.9.2008 1664 1511 tries
76%
3.10.2008 1700 5095 tries
near that time I
decided that I want also to improve my percentage and
not only to improve my rating and here are the
results.
21.10.2008 1750.03 13866 tries
81.2%
25.1.2009:1779.38 24680 tries
83.3%
9.2.2009:1800.05 29000 tries 83.8%
18.10.2009
1852.84
14.11.2009 1856.09 38936 tries
85.1%
27.7.2010 1858.91 48731 tries 86.0%
|
| 2010, Jul 28 |
gorookyourself |
UriBlass...How long have you used CTS and what was your
average rating here at CTS at 1 year intervals? Also do
you have an outside rating other than CTS? If so, what
was your rating when you started CTS compared to now?
Has there been an improvment in your games?
Thanks in
advance. |
| 2010, Jul 28 |
UriBlass |
I wonder if only problems from the last year are
included in
Trophies and Nightmares because I could
not find examples when earlier tries are included.
I
am even not sure if I can find examples of trophies or
Nightmares from August 2009. |
| 2010, Jul 25 |
rkrish999 |
Look at MagnusC's Latest Actions compared to other top
rankers.
He takes longer (I dont see any subsecond
solving) but gets it right! |
| 2010, Jul 25 |
grom43 |
@Uri. p12820. I think you are right about this move. 3
Qh6 Bg5 4 Rxg5 Bxf1 5 Rg3+- seems much clearer than 3
Rxf7 Qxf7 4 Rxg6+ Qg7. @jokim. No, trust me, it's a
joke. |
| 2010, Jul 25 |
UriBlass |
I continue to fight to improve both my percentage and
my rating.
I got a new record of 1857.08 yesterday
with accuracy of 85.9%
It seems that I continue to
improve my accuracy because I got only 28 failures in
the last 210 problems(inspite of being above 1850 all
the time that means that I get harder
problems).
There are some hundrends of problems that
people with rating below 1850 cannot get.
The
highest level of getting problems is for people with
rating above 1950 but the last significant difference
is when you get rating above 1850 because the number of
problems with rating above 2215 that people with rating
above 1950 can get is only 30 or 31 problems. |
| 2010, Jul 24 |
rkrish999 |
P12820 - Fritz agrees with UriBlass Qh6 is +4.69
winning for white.
If anyone like Magnus Carlsen
above GM level is "training" here I would say its for
blitz chess or simultaneous displays. Most positions
should be easily solvable - given enough time - for a
GM. |
| 2010, Jul 24 |
jokim |
Seems dubious indeed. 1. ... g6 2. Rg3 Qe8 3. Rxf7 Qxf7
4. Rxg6+ Qxg6 5. Qxg6+ Kh8 6. h4 and white has a
questionable advantage (4. ... Qg7?). 1. ... g6 2. Rg3
Qe8 3. Qh6 threatening 4. Rh3 and black gets mated. |
| 2010, Jul 24 |
UriBlass |
I see that MagnusC changed his country to norway but we
have no way to know if it is the real Magnus
Carlsen.
Another note:
I found a clearly wrong
solution in CTS and I do not talk about a case when
there is more than one move that lead to the same
result but about a case when the solution is clearly
inferior to the right move(the solution leads to a draw
when there is a win for white)
I talk about problem
12820
http://chess.emrald.net/psolution.php?Pos=2937
8
3.Rxf7 is a serious mistake because it leads to a
draw when 3.Qh6 is winning.
[Event "p12820"]
[Site
"p12820"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White
"N.N."]
[Black "N.N."]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp
"1"]
[FEN
"2rq1rk1/4bpp1/pn2p3/1p2P2Q/1PbN4/P3R3/1BP3PP/5R1K b -
- 0 1"]
[PlyCount "8"]
1... g6 2. Rg3 Qe8 3. Rxf7
Qxf7 4. Rxg6+ Qxg6 5. Qxg6+ *
|
| 2010, Jul 23 |
jokim |
It may just be possible. He has downloaded one of the
full CTS files that are offered - like the one by
sheila - studied it for a few days or over the course
of a few weeks, then comes here to show off his skillz.
He has no chess tournament coming up until the end of
August anyway so what's a chess crack to do. He's been
going for over nine hours straight today from around
10:00 until 19:20. 5500 tries * six seconds waiting
period per exercise at least equals to 9,5 hours! |
| 2010, Jul 23 |
grom43 |
@jokim. There is no chance Magnus has enough time to
come here. It's a joke. |
| 2010, Jul 23 |
UriBlass |
The written country of MagnusC is not norway. |
| 2010, Jul 23 |
jokim |
Is MagnusC who I think he is? Or just another one of
those "I'm invincible!" accounts? |
| 2010, Jul 17 |
rkrish999 |
Still hanging in above 1550 (1575). Had a struggle
bouncing around 1550 for a couple of days. Now seeing
new problems above 1660 which is great.
|
| 2010, Jul 16 |
QuickFire |
I've been above 1550 for some time and keep thinking
that I can keep it that way. But then I have a really
bad session with some of the worst mistakes that I have
ever made. Like today... 7 errors in 23. I kind of saw
it coming after the first two errors. But didn't have
the sense to stop. :) |
| 2010, Jul 13 |
rkrish999 |
Crossed 1550 and have stayed above that for a
week...
So getting more 1690-1750 problems to try
out.
Agree with DinoZhou - we should also be able to
set the range.
|
| 2010, Jul 12 |
DinoZhou |
It should be an option to chose the difficulty range of
problems instead of it being determined by your
rating.
It is much easier to improve when
challenged: for example, I shot from 1300 to 1500 by
creating new accounts, allowing me to try 1600 problems
without reaching that rating; now, I can no longer do
so and I am improving slower. Being able to set the
problems at 1700-1800 for example would offer extra
challenge. |
| 2010, Jul 12 |
DinoZhou |
It should be an option to chose the difficulty range of
problems instead of it being determined by your
rating.
It is much easier to improve when
challenged: for example, I shot from 1300 to 1500 by
creating new accounts, allowing me to try 1600 problems
without reaching that rating; now, I can no longer do
so and I am improving slower. Being able to set the
problems at 1700-1800 for example would offer extra
challenge. |
| 2010, Jul 10 |
rkrish999 |
Has anyone tried the problems at the web
site
http://dejascacchi.altervista.org/exercises.htm
?
The "easy" ones at that site are far harder than
the easy ones here (which I would say are rated 1450 or
less). |
| 2010, Jul 10 |
rkrish999 |
Suggestion: to bias the problem selection range
upward.
E.g. if my rating is 1500, rather than give
me 1340 to 1660 range problems the site should give me
1400 to 1700 range problems.
This should give an
"upward pull" for the person practicing on this
site.
This could also be given as an option to be
set in the profile.
|
| 2010, Jul 04 |
Eronald |
Minor interface changes would improve the site:
- In
the messages page, the new post window should be at
top, where one can see it irght away.
- In the
tactics pages, it would be helpful to have the last
opponent move displayed in chess notation.
- in the
tactics page it would be useful to have an option to
stay on the same problem in case of failure, moving
easily to unrated and then solution mode.
E. |
| 2010, Jul 03 |
element |
- tooxvfvf |
| 2010, Jul 03 |
rkrish999 |
dktransform/chessw
check out
http://dejascacchi.altervista.org/exercises.htm (pdf
format positions)
www.chesszone.org for some nice cbv
files on middlegame and tactics training.
|
| 2010, Jul 02 |
dktransform |
rkrish, chessW: emails sent. thx, dk |
| 2010, Jun 30 |
rkrish999 |
dktransform,
Can you please send me the chessbase
file for pachman? I have euwes and pachman's books
(complete chess strategy, judgement and planning)
already (very old copies in descriptive notation) but
chessbase format would be great.
rkrish999@gmail.com
Best Wishes. |
| 2010, Jun 29 |
chesswizzard |
@dktransform I too would be greatful if you could send
me your chessbase file to me. Cheers!
chesswizzard@hotmail.co.uk |
| 2010, Jun 28 |
john2001plus |
How about a special interface for iPhone? For
example, itsyourtun.com has a nice iPhone web page and
an app. I prefer to access the site from the phone
but I lose 5 seconds resizing each and every problem. |
| 2010, Jun 20 |
IMOEC |
Well said artbek....Thx for confirmation! |
| 2010, Jun 14 |
grom43 |
Thank you, jokim. |
| 2010, Jun 13 |
jokim |
Because after black's ... Nc4, white cannot connect his
hanging pieces, 2. Rb4 Rxd4 and the N on c4 is in the
way for Rb4xd4, white loses a piece. |
| 2010, Jun 13 |
grom43 |
@jokim p.04665 Should have asked why does 1...Nc4 work,
but not 1...Nd7? |
| 2010, Jun 12 |
jokim |
I guess I don't understand the question white can keep
his pieces safe with Nd7 Rb4 |
| 2010, Jun 12 |
grom43 |
@jokim p.04665 After 1 Rxb6, Black can remove his Ne5
from attack WITH TEMPO by attacking the white Rb6.
Black has a choice: 1...Nc4 or 1...Nd7 and 2 ...Rxd4.
So which one? There is only one accurate move and it is
1...Nc4. Why doesn't 1...Nd7 work? |
| 2010, Jun 10 |
jokim |
All positions presented on this site should "go without
saying". CTS ain't no rocket surgery, it is just about
taking advantage of the opponent's hanging pieces while
simultaneously keeping your own pieces covered. But
still these "omg so easy" positions can be darned hard
to completely see through, which is proven over and
over again. |
| 2010, Jun 10 |
artbek |
I guess intuition is also thinking, it just happens
lightning fast, so you may get the impression that
you're merely guessing, but it's just intuitive
thinking. Chess is about both intuition and conscious
calculation. Intuition points you in the right
direction and calculation double-checks that the
intuition was right ;). Only computers can inspect
every possible move, we need the help of our intuition.
We develop our intuition through experience. So first
comes calculation but with experience some positions
will become obvious and easy to solve, seemingly
without thinking. But it's just different level of
thinking. I hope it makes sense :)
Personally, I
focus on calculating, and rating/time is only there as
a measure of my progress. I don't try to beat the time,
it's just too frustrating. I try to beat the problem,
and then the system tells me how well I did. If my
rating goes up it means I can calculate faster than
before. If not I still have the satisfaction from
cracking the puzzle. I find this approach both
effective and motivating.
Best of luck! |
| 2010, Jun 10 |
tomohawk |
You are free to ignore the time and concentrate only on
accuracy, if that is what you wish to do. |
| 2010, Jun 10 |
bigcaptain |
How is fast time controls beneficial to the study of
Chess Tactics? I don't get it. Someone please tell me.
You need to give the mind time to take in the
scenery.Chess is about thinking and not instant moving.
That is what WOODPUSHERS DO. |
| 2010, Jun 10 |
bigcaptain |
I agree that the solving time is so quick that one has
no time to think. Chess is about thinking and not
playing the first thing that comes to one's mind. I
wished that Chess Tactical Server would address this
problem. I like the tactical problems, but I think the
time is way to fast. |
| 2010, Jun 09 |
matein20 |
Why is the time limit for solving the exercises so low?
Its useless, you have to make first move that comes in
your mind, no time to calculate anything at all. |
| 2010, Jun 09 |
QuickFire |
By self-motivation I mean to refer to who is being
motivated. Nobody is trying to motivate us into
anything. Those that post their solve times/accuracy
are trying to motivate themselves only. Using us as
observers helps to keep them to their intentions.
They're not trying to use us as coaches or anything.
It's worth trying sometimes. I find, when playing
music, that I practice the things other people know I'm
working on more so than the things I do in private. So
it's obvious that this sort of thing helps me to
motivate myself. I'm sure it works for others too. |
| 2010, Jun 08 |
tngerb |
I have to agree that posting time solved is kind of
dumb.... Self-motivation comes from "self" not from the
acknowledgment of others... and it makes the poster
seem stupid. I've seen posts from some of you saying
you missed it the first time and then I see "solved 1.7
seconds." Congrats you have a short-term memory...
really...? |
| 2010, Jun 08 |
tngerb |
I have to agree that posting time solved is kind of
dumb.... Self-motivation comes from "self" not from the
acknowledgment of others... and it makes the poster
seem stupid. I've seen posts from some of you saying
you missed it the first time and then I see "solved 1.7
seconds." Congrats you have a short-term memory...
really...? |
| 2010, Jun 07 |
barz |
Totally agree with memo. Just imagine if everyone post
its time or accuracy for each session... |
| 2010, Jun 07 |
QuickFire |
Memo, posting your aims and progress in a public place
is an acknowledged form of self-motivation. More
effective than merely telling yourself. No-one forces
you to study every detail. |
| 2010, Jun 07 |
QuickFire |
Regarding chess hero, I've noticed a few occasions
where it tells me that my move was better than the
engine's -- which is weird because it's the engine
deciding this. I suppose it depends on evaluation
before the move is made vs after or amount of time
calculated. But it's first choice might also improve
evaluation if analysed under those conditions. Doesn't
spoil the fun of it, though! And I make enough genuine
errors to find the software useful. I used to do the
same thing with the Fritz analysis window open and a
card to hide the moves but not the evaluation. Keep
trying until I made the best move, but I would have a
clue especially for when there was a criticial position
with only one or two best moves. Plus it was too much
effort to keep track of the score! :D |
| 2010, Jun 07 |
tomohawk |
White then has Nf6+, forking K/d7 and R/g8. |
| 2010, Jun 07 |
hepcecob |
Reguarding p61465
Am I missing something? What's
keeping the king from just taking the Rook? |
| 2010, Jun 06 |
dktransform |
always high class fellows |
| 2010, Jun 05 |
jokim |
RT @memo #cts #awesomeaccuracy |
| 2010, Jun 05 |
memo |
The shameless bragging of mediocre results is quite
annoying. Post it to your blog or twitter account
instead. Don't forget to mention what time you used the
toilet and how many sheets of tissue paper you used.
Really, it's just exactly THAT interesting.
|
| 2010, Jun 05 |
grom43 |
Accuracy versus rating discussion. I was going to open
a second account, but read that our hosts would prefer
I didn't. Instead, they suggested logging in as a
guest. Every day I come to the site, therefore, I play
as a guest. Then I log in to my account and try to play
more accurately. As a "guessing" guest, my rating used
to end up very near my own "intuitive" rating. Since
making myself calculate (accuracy), however, I notice
my intuitive guest now settles on a rating more than
100 points higher. Last night, I saw problems rated
2000+ (which I cannot rated between 1600-1700). Do not
have temperament to take consistency over thousands as
a goal (perhaps it is simple laziness), but do think
leaning toward calculation is better use of this site
than intuition (moving quickly based on your knowledge
of a position). |
| 2010, Jun 05 |
QuickFire |
i also liked chesshero. thanks for the link. |
| 2010, Jun 04 |
tomohawk |
Probably the accuracy vs rating discussions will
continue on this board for as long as this fine
resource exists. I fall into the accuracy camp;
however, I do concede that having a higher rating gives
one access to many different problems. Perhaps there is
a happy medium at some point where you get the vast
majority of problems right, but still regularly get
new, challenging problems. BTW, in my own trials I find
that the small percentage improvement from 95% to 98%
correct in individual sets "costs" me at least 50
points, and probably more.
BTW, I tried out
bigcaptain's recommendation of Chess Hero (see down a
few posts) and I was very impressed by it. |
| 2010, Jun 04 |
dktransform |
sorry, mistated: 5,400 @ 98.5%+ to finish larger super
set, started with 9,600 @ 93.2%+, making 15k |
| 2010, Jun 04 |
dktransform |
last 3,500 at 93.1% annualized currently, at 1500 to
1530. Try it out. NOt for 35 or 350 but for thousands.
Its NOT about rating difficulty. Not hardly. Its
about consistency across thousands. We all have good
day and bad days, but one wrong in fifteen day after
day after day is not a joke. |
| 2010, Jun 04 |
dogWaste |
I did 15,000 @ 98.5% for one year at 1300, dkTransform.
Current, 81% at 1550. Same person. Have you tried it?
If not, don't judge. I have been here for four years
and YOU are gonna educate me on how ratings work??
dkTransform, dogWaste, fastDtransform, dk |
| 2010, Jun 04 |
theKnife |
DogW : what is important is the rating-mean of the
problem you played. |
| 2010, Jun 04 |
dogWaste |
0/308= 308 @ 100.0% |
| 2010, Jun 04 |
bigcaptain |
Website/download
here:
http://innokuo.altervista.org/chesshero.html
Chess
Hero is a study program and it is free. I
have
connected many pgn files to the Chess Hero
program and
I am getting many hours of study enjoyment
out of the
program. I urge you to try it. In this
software you are
to be faced with a position from a
game and you see if
you can play what the master
played. Score points based
on your performance. Also I
find this program is grat
for pgn Tactics and Endgame
files. |
| 2010, Jun 03 |
bigcaptain |
Website/download here:
http://innokuo.altervista.org/chesshero.html
Chess
Hero is a study program and it is free. I have
connected many pgn files to the Chess Hero program and
I am getting many hours of study enjoyment out of the
program. I urge you to try it. In this software you are
to be faced with a position from a game and you see if
you can play what the master played. Score points based
on your performance. Also I find this program is grat
for pgn Tactics and Endgame files.
|
| 2010, Jun 01 |
thal2010 |
I must always take breaks from chess so it's a
challenge just to maintain my rating. I just shot it
into a tailspin, losing over a hundred points in just a
few tries. |
| 2010, Jun 01 |
grom43 |
On Mar 23rd, my accuracy was 68.8%. Today my accuracy
is 69.8%, one point higher. After discussing taking
accuracy as a goal with various people, I decided to
see whether calculation trumps intuition on this site.
Calculation is more difficult past 50 years of age, but
intuition is better. My rating is a bit lower and I
still play quickly sometimes with error (especially
within the first five tries of a session for some
reason). What I found is this: I play chess better now.
Nothing like twenty years ago, but improved from March
23rd. So there is something to be said for calculating
here, if you wish to improve. |
| 2010, May 31 |
MaltaCross |
Thanks QuickFire for your englightening reply. Much
appreciated. |
| 2010, May 31 |
fastDtransform |
Quickfire has many thousands of tries, with many
trophies in the high 1760's, at 90.7%. I view peak
rating as and trophies as evidence of raw horsepower.
In my main handle, my peak is 1592, and only trophies
at 1660. Whereas Quickfire is HANGING at 1571 right
now, close to 100%. Might but 3% of us here be able to
do what HE does. Peace to Gliscor. This is chess
tactical training, and might we respect those who are
better than us. And learning from their example. |
| 2010, May 31 |
dktransform |
@Gliscor: welcome aboard. @humanism: God grant me the
courage not to speak ill of any other person
unnecessarily. Might I approach Quickfire's skills one
day here, over 1550 91%, whom I respect and enjoy and
appreciate. |
| 2010, May 31 |
Gliscor |
Quickfire seems to be an idiot |
| 2010, May 30 |
fastDtransform |
@bigcaptain: You can make one profile for speed and
difficulty ... |
| 2010, May 30 |
dogWaste |
... and one for accuracy |
| 2010, May 30 |
bigcaptain |
Hello Operator:
This is a great site, but the time
controls are too fast for an old man like myself. There
needs to be a fast time, like you have for Blitz Chess
and a slower time to play so that one can understand
what is going on with the tactics situation. Please
give us a choice of time controls, say for Blitz and
Standard torunament chess. i would like to know what
other players think about this suggestion. Again you
have a great site for study of tactics, but it is way
too fast for me. |
| 2010, May 29 |
QuickFire |
MaltaCross, your stats are rounded up to 80% -- which
puts you on page 28 of the table. |
| 2010, May 28 |
MaltaCross |
Hi! My current success rating is 79.8%
However, when
I checked the success rating in the 79% region, my
handle (i.e. user name) was NOT listed there! How come? |
| 2010, May 28 |
grom43 |
@JoshBrack. p.36166 might not be the best problem on
CTS. However, many problems contain opponent errors:
first move, second move, third move. Your job is to
find the best move. After White's first check, you get
a choice of king moves. One move loses your queen. The
other doesn't. Second check, exactly same: one king
move loses your queen, the other doesn't. I don't
understand many of the comments on the problem and nor
do I understand your objection. Black's threat is
...Nd3-f2+ and Nf2-g4+ and mates. Rf1 only gives White
the chance to give his R for black's N (on f2).
|
| 2010, May 28 |
JoshBrack |
please remove problem 36166 'cause there is no
solution!!! it's based on the opponent making a bad
first move so really there is no winning first move for
the answer. |
| 2010, May 28 |
grom43 |
@pdubs. You can lose a lot of rating by being accurate
and too slow. There's a clock. You only gain rating by
being accurate and quick. |
| 2010, May 27 |
pdubs |
I don't get the rating. I read the description, but if
it is a logarithmic decline in points awarded, why am I
getting negative points for a correct solution? |
| 2010, May 27 |
grom43 |
p45755. No, I did not. But forewarned is forearmed. |
| 2010, May 26 |
jokim |
Did you walk into mate in one p45755? :p |
| 2010, May 25 |
dogWaste |
Welcome aboard. Family of three now: slow-medium,
slow, medium fast at 90.3% dkTransform, 96.7% dogWaste,
81.5% fastDtransform :) one happy Nigerian family now. |
| 2010, May 25 |
fastDtransform |
'1, 2, 3, test, test, test, 1, 2, 3, test. dkTransform
do you copy?' |
| 2010, May 25 |
theKnife |
agkazama : to get the pgn file
:
ginger_baker[at]hotmail[dot]fr |
| 2010, May 24 |
dktransform |
i wanted to be less accurate in view of getting the
rating up, but it wouldnt stop: 2f/171s= 173 @ 98.84%
1451, but if experience is any guide, there is a rapid
fall off from 1450 to 1500... my punishment will come.
and addendum to below: add Quickfire. My sincere
appologies. these all show us the right way, and i but
aspire to approximate their success. dk/aka dogWaste |
| 2010, May 24 |
agkazama |
hi whoever has the pgn copy of the problems can you
please leave your email so i can get it from you |
| 2010, May 23 |
dktransform |
[what i try to do cannot be compared to the far
superior tomohawk, nune, helmt3, and tr5177 but keep
trying. solemn bows to sempai's et al.] |
| 2010, May 23 |
dktransform |
[sorry, please let me correct: 'Just now, after doing
700 or so at
95.2% got back on track...'] |
| 2010, May 23 |
dktransform |
If I might please take a moment, and share
extemporaneously a bit... For a long time, my goal was
to get to 90%, then it shifted to 90.1%. Then 90.5% (91
'handle) became my long term goal here, but in so
doing, got too caught up in rating for awhile back
towards 1490, so lost my self imposed run rate of
1f/13s= 14 @ 92.86%, to hit exactly 5,700f/54,300s=
60,000 @ 90.5000%. Just now, after doing 700 or so at
99.2% got back on track, more recently at 98%+. Now, I
will shift back to a simple 92.8% rate, a huge
difference, but relearned how to do far better accuracy
than I had before--i.e. 97,98,99% at 1430 to 1460, not
just at 1300 or 1350. A qualitative leap, at least for
me... Blessings to all our colleagues, around the
world, in and outside CTS. Thank you, dk |
| 2010, May 23 |
dktransform |
last 1f/99= 100 @ 99.0% 1439 |
| 2010, May 20 |
thal2010 |
how do you tell if someone is using a timecheat? is it
the funny scraggly graph on their problem set, the
timestamps, or should you just ask them directly? |
| 2010, May 20 |
jokim |
My FIDE grading number is probably lower than yours |
| 2010, May 18 |
jyt230 |
Jokim what is your otb elo rating? And secondly what's
your secret to getting better at chess :) |
| 2010, May 16 |
e4e5f4 |
3/150 = 1/50 < 153. Mathematical statements have to be
correct. Sorry, dktransform ;-) |
| 2010, May 16 |
dktransform |
3/150=153 |
| 2010, May 16 |
dktransform |
last 3f/150= 150@ 98.0% 1471 ... OK, off to blitz now.
The line in Alice's Restaurant: "I want to kill, I want
to kill. I WANT to KILL!" (trying to avoid draft to
Viet Nam war to pose as a crazy but unfortunately, got
accepted to the military...) |
| 2010, May 15 |
dktransform |
last 2f/120s= 122@ 98.4% 1443 |
| 2010, May 13 |
dktransform |
last 5f/255s= 260 @ 98.08% 1426 stresssss, but makes
the blitz rating go up....... again ..... |
| 2010, May 12 |
jokim |
1. Nc3 Nc6 -- A N and a n. |
| 2010, May 11 |
e4e5f4 |
Anand has won...
Now its time to create a new opening,
let´s say the Anand Indian. Has anybody any proposals?
:-) |
| 2010, May 10 |
dktransform |
Stress, stress, stress, stressfully sessions: 0f/101s=
101 @ 100%; only two wrong last 155 @ 98.71% 1429 |
| 2010, May 09 |
dktransform |
Stress!! 2f/100s= 102@ 98.04% 1434 |
| 2010, May 02 |
dktransform |
last 14f/249s= 263@ 94.7% 1430 |
Please sign in as registered tactician to post a message. |
