How is this possible?

To be honest I don`t understand your concerns. The Computer4-Impossible (rating 2050-2100) lost a 15/10 game to me although 5.6% of my moves were inaccuracies, 31.9% mistakes, and 1.4% blunders. If my every move were a puzzle I would fail 4 out of 10 (including opening moves). And I had much more time to think than I would have had with the Tactics Trainer.

You have to find and make the best possible moves to pass the tactics puzzles but you don`t need it to win a game. Your forum made me check many puzzles and you can often gain a decisive material advantage (=failed) or mate in 2 or 3 moves/gain a better advantage. If I played you I would likely capture your hanging queen without even trying to find a checkmate in three.

No offense meant, but I do not think 1600-1800 rated players (see your first post) usually play like aces which doesn`t have to apply to Bullet for I have no experience with this rating range.

Now, now...I don't think anyone said that having more time doesn't allow for better chess play. This is just a strawman argument you are building.

I won't play bullet for this reason. I suspect that I could be quite good at it with sufficient practice. But, I know that time management would take priority over good chess play.

However, guys...

When you do rated tactical problems, time becomes a serious factor. Not nearly as much as in bullet...though, I think, more at a slower blitz rate.

As a senior citizen, I am still sharp witted. But I do feel the time pressure. And, it is my experience, that usually you can solve the riddle within the time constraint (or slightly over) or...you will either get it wrong or seriously eat up the clock and still get strapped into the dunking chair.

Quick witted vs. dullard. My experience is that dullards have a serious problem with being quick witted. (Now, obviously, a couple of you guys may be the exception. lol)

All this aside...no, you have not convinced me that a class E player on rated tactics can be a class B player on any unaided chess play, regardless of time allocations.

Please come up with more reasoned rationalizing. (BTW...look up the word "rationalize" -- it is the exact opposite of what most people think.)

All Live Chess games are unaided chess.

Read the OP again. Then comment, please.

One major flaw in your assumptions is that because a person has a tactics trainer score on chess.com that they use it regularly and/or take it seriously.

A lot of people don't like the tactics trainer here on chess.com. I use one on another site myself and like it a lot more. People could have tried the trainer a couple of times and either got it wrong, or been heavily penalized on time, and never used it again. Their rating will always be low.

Someone also could have used the tactics trainer here a lot when they were first learning and moved on to something else so it doesn't reflect their real tactical skills. And even other people could just mess around with tactics trainer to see if they can move in 1 second and get the right move without actually looking at the position as they would in a real game.

So assuming that a person's chess.com tactical trainer rating reflects their actual tactical skill would be wrong. In some cases it will match and in others it won't.

I suspect that you are talking about chesstempo. If so, it is good as is the one here. They both have value.

Now, I don't think that I said what you are trying to say that I said.

When there is a great divergence between tactical rating and game play, then there must be an explanation that makes sense. Yours does not.

Basically what you are getting at in this thread is you want people to say that yes those others must be cheating.

1) People play better at slower time controls, the tactics trainer here severely punishes taking your time to solve.

2) I gave reasons why the tactics trainer rating here can EASILY not reflect a person's actual tactics level.

3) You have absolutely no way of knowing a person's tactical rating because as I pointed out the rating here may not reflect the actual rating. Therefore you have no way of knowing if there is a big divergence between a person's game rating and their true tactical rating.

4) As I said early in this thread, people are allowed to use databases with online chess. Therefore they will blunder less since they can follow other games that have been played without blunders. Another reason a person can play better than their tactical rating.

People have pointed out plenty of reasons why to you but you just say "No you are all wrong come up with better reasons" aka "I want to hear that people cheat but I don't want to be the one to suggest it".

Dismissing all arguments that come in (especially when many of them have made perfect sense) just because it isn't what you're looking for isn't the way to have a discussion.

You are dead right! It is funny that someone who tried out only 5 puzzles (just like me) is so much concerned. If I ever come to like the Tactics Trainer I will use it to improve my bullet skills which means I`ll try to find the right move in a couple of seconds and will have a very low rating.

ChessSponge is exactly right, here.

These are all jolly good comments. And, there is no place for cynicism in chess. This is ubiquitously known.

Besides, you wanna play bullet...do you?! For that you don't need no steenkin' tactics.

Someone once pointed out a player to me at a RL tournament that was rated about 1300. Then told me she was womens US postal champion. Rated well over 2200 in that format.

I guess time finding your time control makes all the difference.

You got it man! roflmao