[FEN "rn1qkbnr/1p3pp1/p2pb2p/2p5/2B1P3/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq -"]

in this one, the first move is that white castles.  why then is the suggested move of Bxc4 considered such a good one?  obviously, it puts the rook in temporary danger.  but the rook can then move out easily.  white bishop can't really threaten the king then.   

usually with these tactics trainer questions, the move that is suggested as the right one bestows a strong advantage, (and usually check, or mate) on the opponent.  I kept on looking for something much more decisive than Bxc4.   so, I end up being penalized by tactics trainer because I kept thinking, "they must be looking for something more than the obvious Bxc4.  this is a frustrating aspect of tactics trainer sometimes--it feels like a game of "what am I thinking".  or, was Bxc4 a much stronger move than I am realizing? 

You should use the little board editor icon (far left) to insert your positions. If I understand correctly, the board executes the castling for white and you are supposed to find black's best. What's wrong with winning a piece? You have to understand that a lot of novices use the trainer so some puzzles have to be set at a very easy level. Still, I can understand your frustration. As a better player, you find a good move and then look for a better one.

thanks-- that makes sense.  I agree-- nothing at all wrong with winning a piece.  I just thought there must be a better move than that, 'cause it was fairly obvious.

good to see someone else's reaction, though.  I appreciate it.  

I have noticed some of the same things with puzzles. I guess the computer has figured out the best move in some cases or in others you are expected to match a master who played a game in that position. I have found sometimes, the move the master made isn't the best one, and I too get frustrated for taking a few minutes to find the best move and then realized I am penalized because I didn't see it and move at blitz speed. The GMs wouldn't move that fast in most cases, why should I be expected to? It makes me feel like my answers and strategies for solving the puzzles, become somewhat of a guess, because of the potential subjectivety of the answers.

The time it takes to complete a tactic is an indication of skill. I'd recommend taking as much time as it takes until you figure out the answer or give up, and take the loss, if there is a loss. Just getting it right isn't enough to gauge tactical strength.

Also, please post an example of an puzzle whose answer has subjective influence. It's my understanding that all of the answers are always the best moves.

I found one that had three different ways to checkmate in the same amount of moves. Two of them where deliberate and simple, I like things that are hard to mess up. The other(the one they were looking for) was much more difficult to see, it required a sacrifice. I realize that it takes more skill to both see it and pull it off. I however, especially if I am playing for something special, am going to take the easy sure win, instead of some technical combination(that maybe I over look something in) that might impress people more. I think that, though it might not count as a skill or tactic, but when it comes to winning, why not make it a no brainer, this to me is a sign of a better player, than the one who doesn't takes unnecessary chances.

I doubt that's true, but if you were certain I hope you reported it. Moderators work hard to eliminate problems like that.

I did report it. I don't seem good enough to discover something like that?

Not at all, but in every example I've seen brought up, the person has missed something. Didn't mean to offend.

I actually discovered two different puzzles with more than one mate possibility in the same amount of moves, but I can't find one of them, in the archive. I do understand. I thought I had found a few other glitches at times, but I was wrong.

I am curious as to the time it would take, much higher ranking players, to do some of the same puzzles. I find it interesting that, in the games of the highest level players, they often have many minutes to think about each individual move. I seriously doubt they are rushing their moves as fast as the tactics trainer demands, for some of the moves, before it starts to ding you. Considering being able to move fast, isn't really a skill that the highest level player has to use, I figure, why should I?

Back to the topic the OP was getting at, I did try a puzzle that I didn't pick the right move for. I was unable to see why the rook they decided to fork the bishops with was the best one. I chose the other one. I wish the tactics trainer gave clarifications about such things.

A strong player needs to recognize tactics quickly not only for the moves he's making, but for every line of analysis as well. I sometimes spend 15 minutes on a critical position, only to discover that my opponent has a simple tactical refutation. There goes 15 valuable minutes of my time that I could have used on something else if I were better at seeing tactics. Even at slower time controls, speed can be a factor. TT may push it a little, but speed is definitely important. If I had an unlimited amount of time, I could find any tactic. We have a clock OTB, why shouldn't we when we're practicing?

I already understood the point you were trying to make. I am talking about figuring out 4 or 5 moves combinations in 2 or 3 minutes(this might not seem a big deal, but some combination for 4 or 5 moves have so many different possible variations, it isn't possible to look at them all in that time, I won't dispute that it is possible to look at a position and know based on either experience or intuition, what the right moves are to make. I never spend fifteen minutes on a move. I find if I have to spend that much time on a move, I am already screwed. That should be a indication of my ability to assess situations in general, in addition to   chess problems. In the end, its just a rating. It is subjective by its very nature. Anything that is estimated on a educated guess is bound to some degree of inaccuracy.

P.S.

I never thought we should have unlimited amounts of time to finish our tactics trainer puzzles. I have noticed a repition to them. I have also noticed there is an average time for completion. Why should I get dinged for how long it takes me when, there are people with nothing better to do except, sit around practicing the same puzzles over and over and getting to know them so well, that the data is skewed. They wouldn't  recognize unfamiliar chess positions from their games at anywhere near that speed. So in reality, the average times established don't take into account this bias. In fact if it showed puzzles with far, far, far less repetition, you would notice what I am saying. In other words, just because I recognized a few puzzles and know the combination of moves faster each time, does that really translate into me being that much better tactically over all?