Kingpatzer, maybe I'm relaying old news here, but have you tried the tactics trainer over at Chess Tempo? If not: It is probably exactly what you're after.
I lost points while solving a tactics trainer puzzle?
Sort:
Bubatz yes I have and it is a much better program than what is available here. Again, as I've said a few times, that's to be expected since providing a high quality tactics training program is not Chess.com's primary business, and it is Chesstempo.com's.
@Kingpatzer: In my opinion, Tactics Trainer is a great tool! I know that you disagree, and so I need to respect that. This is why I bristle at your calling FM gauranga "wrong."
I don't wish to be argumentative or belittle your opinion of TT by saying you're wrong, but I do think you don't fully understand its purpose and how to use it. I say this because I, too, used to dislike and disdain TT. I thought that the time factor put way too much pressure and encouraged sloppy play and sloppy thinking. Moreover, the time bar (which at the time wasn't removed) was highly distracting. I also loathed losing points for solving a problem correctly! How absurd!
However, I have come to view TT differently. It truly is a valuable tool that diversifies one's chessic thinking. TT places great emphasis on solving quickly, but what helped me not only improve at TT but also become more accustomed to it was to de-emphasize solving quickly. So many times, I have tried to solve problems quickly, only to get them wrong. Then I would get frustrated.
Instead, I ignore that I'm being timed. I decide to exert my best effort to find the best move, however long it takes. This has taken self-discipline, because I find myself sometimes rushing a bit and getting a little sloppy. But my TT rating has sharply increased overall. This tool has also helped me view my chess games in different ways, as I look at moves I would never have considered before.
If I take a really long time, then of course I will lose points for passing a problem. But I decided that I didn't care about that. If I lose points, so what? I'll just solve the next problem. Each problem's rating is just an estimate anyway, and occasionally the estimated rating is way off--which can sometimes be entertaining! I strive to care only about getting each problem right--not getting each problem right quickly.
So my advice to you is, instead of trying to solve tactics quickly, try to solve them slowly! If you can be patient with yourself, your solving time will improve on its own, as your mind acclimates itself to the drills. This has worked a great deal for me, so you might give it a try. 
@whirlwind -- Thanks for your comments.
I recognize the correctness of what you're saying -- which is why I believe that TT is badly designed as a pedagogical tool.
That is -- the tool itself encourages the student to use it incorrectly! You, like myself and many others, found yourself trying to solve problems quickly and the result wasn't good. Moreover, you had to consciously ignore the evaulation and negative feedback when you solved a problem slowly and correctly but took too much time for the TT's liking. I found for myself that I simply couldn't "ignore" the tool's feedback. Instead I found myself, like you, trying to move quickly and without due regard to accuracy.
The reason I no longer use TT but use a tool at another site is precisely because being encouraged to do the wrong thing was disasterous to my game. I found myself playing quickly in real games with horrible results. When I moved to a tactics training tool that only considered if I got the right answer or not, and did not focus on the time component, my OTB results improved dramatically (well, after I spent some time unlearning the "move fast you're going to lose points" mentality!!)
You probably missed it, but I tried your advice months ago, and found that it really changed my results for the better. But I could not try your advice on this site because of the poor design of the tool here. Instead, I moved my tactics training to another site. My counter advice is to try tactics training at chesstempo.com ofor a bit and see the differences between a merely adequate tool and one that is considerably better designed and you'll better understand some of the reasons why I don't like the TT here.
That said, I don't in any way consider that a flaw in Chess.com. "Tactics trainer" is not their core business - it's a nice add-on and it serves some of their customers well enough to be a selling point for some people.
Whereas I also prefer the trainer at Chess Tempo, what whirlwind says is really worth considering, though. Starting a while ago, I did exactly what he just proposed and found that the tool here on chess.com (which annoyed the hell out of me at first, too) is a good thing after all. That is: IF you ignore (and are able to ignore) the timer. Now, being advised to ignore the timer does not mean that this feature has zero value. After a while of training you will see from your results that you get faster nilly willy - without hurrying or compromising your thought process. I was surprised to find out about this myself. In this sense, the TT here gives feedback on an aspect of your progress which the trainer at Chess Tempo won't. That's why I continue to use both trainers.
Kingpatzer wrote:
Kingwraith wrote:
And again, it seems some people are just more interested in their rating than actually learning tactics. I don't understand how to option to turn off one's timer and still get rated is that important if learning the tactics is the goal.
Because the goal is to learn tactics. Getting punished for getting the problem correct is quite simply bad pedagogy. It destracts from the goal.
If you are going to give rating points for problems, and then punish people by taking away rating points for successfully completing the problem, then people are going to find an issue with that.
That you don't understand why that is simply is fascinating in it's own right, as it is simply and basic psychology that any instructor of any subject understands. You don't tell a student "you failed!" when they get the right answer. It tends to be counterproductive in any number of ways.
I understand the purpose for the rating. It serves as a motivator for one, appealing to the student's pride, as well as a gauge by which one can measure progress.
What I do NOT understand is the obssession that people have with their TT rating. By far the most common criticism people have of TT is how their precious rating is affected by the various features. It's like bragging rights or something. My main point has always been, you shouldn't focus on your rating, focus on your tactical education. You can learn tactics just fine without being rated. You don't need to be rated to learn. What people want is a great rating, and IMO the timer keeps them from getting that. That's why they don't like it. I don't give a rat's behind about my rating beyond it being a gauge of my tactical progress.
Hey, maybe they have modified TT, as my TT rating has actually GONE UP. I concentrate on correct solutions instead of trying to rush, so it is nice to gain some points for a change.
@Kingpatzer: That is an interesting perspective. Still, TT is a fine pedagogical tool. It only interferes if the student permits it. Superficially, TT seems to pressure one into making fast moves. Still, as you and I both discovered, TT works great when one resists the urge to move quickly. This should not be beyond the understanding of any chess player, who should always be finding ways to think "outside the box" and in more diverse ways. Indeed, the Tactics Trainer's very overall mechanism could be considered a macro-tactic itself.
But TT does not reprimand a student for failing when a problem is solved! TT is very clear as to when a problem is passed and when it is failed. The loss of points has no bearing on pass/fail. Just as in a chess game, we must not be too materialistic and focus too heavily on the rating. If I am upset when I pass a problem and lose a point (or five), then I am seeing the glass half empty. More important is that I passed the problem! If I pass, I win... period.
I was just thinking a bit about the average time users need to solve the puzzles on TT and against which our own performance is pitched. I wanted to ask if anyone knows about whether failed tries are factored into this somehow. For otherwise, average solving time could maybe be more an artefact of user behavior rather than gauging average user performance and/or difficulty of the problem. I'll give an (purposively extreme) example: Assume we were all avid bullet players and therefore in TT would always play the first move that comes to mind. This would most probably lead to a quite high percentage of fails, but if the machine only computes the mean of all solved tries, then average solving time for all puzzles would go waaayyy down giving a quite misleading impression regarding actual user performance.
Yes, Bubatz, each failed try raises the average time of the tactics (by n * 5 seconds, where n is the length of the tactics in moves).
That's enough of this for me. It's easy to see what's going on here when we have an OTB 1425 lecturing on "proper OTB thinking processes" and categorically dismissing input from an FM as "wrong".
My results tell me that his advice is wrong for me. My own experience using blitz based tactics training was to habituate moving quickly without thinking clearly.
My results increased dramatically when I changed the way I trained tactics from worrying about solving problems quickly to following the advice of Dan Heisman and focusing on not playing "hope chess."
So, is Dan wrong because his title isn't GM? Or does a guy who makes a pretty good living as a full time chess trainer and who has gained respect the world over for his insights maybe have a point?
And while I have no experience being a titled player, I do have experience being an improving older player with cognitive problems caused by a head injury. Guess what -- I tried the advice of trying to solve tactical problems quickly. It didn't work for me.
And I'm aware that anecdote is not the singular of evidence. I also have a teaching and training background in multiple subjects. My comments with respect to the functionality of the TT are not unfounded. But thanks for choosing to ignore the content of my message.