I've noticed over the span of many thousand tactics problems versus many hundred games that our tactics ratings always remain more volatile than our chess ratings.  Is there any particular reason why this is the case?  I would envision that our tactical abilities should theoretically "settle down" just as our overall chess ratings do. 

Take for example my following two rating charts (game rating, tactics rating) for a pictographic comparison of volatility:

I assume this is pretty much the same for the rest of you?

Cheers!

Pretty much, although this could be attributed to inconsistent tactical ability?

Same for me.  With the Tactics Trainer, I often vary by 300 points in one night.

The ratings for the TT seem to be chess ratings on speed.  Do enough TT problems on a bad night, your rating plummets; on a good night, it blasts off.

Kinda difficult to finish as many chess matches in one (bad/good) night, so I would expect chess ratings to look smoother.

Just conjecture.  :)

Btw, 1400 to 1800--good job!

Keep in mind that you gain/lose more points when you get a tactic trainer correct/wrong than you would if you win/lose a game (same ratings difference).

Also, as LisaV has mentioned, you do many tactic trainer problems in a sitting whereas you don't finish as many games at the same time.

LisaV: Very true indeed, I've taken some 300 point dives and blast-offs quite recently.

bondiggity: In theory, the more of something you do, the more your rating level for doing such should "stabalize".  This kind of falls in line with the concept of "you don't really know your real chess rating until you've played at least X games".

I still dont know mine. I get beat by 1300 and then turn around and beat a 1700.