Incorrect Rating for Tactics Problem?

I think it's fair to say that if Mieses missed the tactic against Tarrasch, it's not a 1200 rated problem. 1600 minimum.

Lesson 3

If you know what to look for 'Misplaced pieces', the problem is not that difficult.

this type of tactic is one of the most common out there, I don't know if the ratings are interactive, but if it is, people probably have played 1.Ra1 immediately when they've seen the queen on a2.

Ok, I saw Ra1 immediately too.  And I saw the queen could only go to 1 square...but for a player to look past that takes higher than a 1200 rating...of that I'm sure.  And people who are silly enough to move Ra1 without knowing the continuation are dumbbells anyway.

I take it you haven't done tactics training in interactive tactics sites . That kind of stuff always happens, most people just guess instead of trying to analyze a little and I admit it's very annoying, especially with problems having a check as the 1st move of the solution. It always brings down the rating of the problem a couple hundred points in my opinion because of see check play check players.

See the TT rating list here, it's full of people with less than 50% percentage, that basically means they are relying completely on pattern recognition. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I had 1 problem wrong out of 2, but it works for some people, they can reach very high ratings.

I would certainly respect a player with 90% above 2000 much more than a 2300 rated player with 50%, but as I said, it's a matter of approach. Some argue pattern recognition is all it takes to be good at tactics, some think otherwise.

the ratings in chess mentor are not interactive; they are simply set by the author. this one should be rated at least 1600 just as you say, and i'll change it.

There is a big difference between finding tactics when you are told there is tactics and finding tactics when nobody told you there is tactics.

As far as I know, the better you do, the harder your problems get, until you reach a point where you get half the problems right and half the problems wrong, so it's expected for people to have around 50% right. In fact, the only way to get 90% would be to either do very few puzzles, and then stop, or be some GM for whom the toughest puzzles in the database are no challenge anyway.

That's not true. You just solve them slowly enough that you get 9 out of 10 correct, and your rating can still stabilize somewhere. I'm a living example of this so I know what I'm talking about

The thing is, solving them slowly is the OTB equivalent of getting them wrong...

 That may have some truth in it, but don't forget this is a learning tool, so the factor of time pressure need not be applicable until the learner has achieved a degree of proficiency.

I don't think it's about "proficiency" for everyone. I've done probably close to 20K tactics problems now and my increase in solving speed is negligible.

You are committing the logical error of hasty generalization. There are many possible reasons, aside from relying upon pattern recognition, that a player might score less than 50%. Of course pattern recognition is important, perhaps even the most crucial aspect of tactics training. Even so, it alone accounts neither for success, nor failure.

I can assure you that in the vast majority of my more than 50% wrong, I get the first move in a sequence correct (pattern recognition). In many of them I get six of eight moves correct (often endgame technique), but in some cases I fail even on the first move. Some wrong answers, especially in long sequences, still lead to a winning position (practical play vs. precise technique).

For many of us that aim at precision and speed, 50% is a goal, not a failure.

OK, I shouldn't have said "completely" and should've added "most of them" or "in most problems" somewhere in there. With that, I think it's clear that a 50% solver is relying mostly on pattern recognition, by which I mean a lot of "educated guessing"  involved without calculating everything out. If we get technical about the term, it might be argued calculating to the end in a way depends mostly on pattern recognition too, but my point should be clear. And I don't understand how your example is counter. It seems you still fail or solve based mostly on pattern recognition, no?

I didn't say 50% is a failure, it's just not my preferred method. Although I still believe it's not the best approach, I specifically mentioned it works for some people.

I have only 46,5% with a rating of 2500+.

That's great but I don't see how it's relevant.

you were talking about 50%?

As long as we understand the term "pattern recognition" as referring to sequences of moves rather than static configurations of pieces, then your generalization, as you have qualified it, seems plausible.

Last night at chess club, we had a brief argument during a post-mortem. The position was something like:

White had sixty seconds or less left. Here and later, he played the moves differently than I would have. He created a passed pawn on the g-file instantly, while I would have maneuvered my king to the queenside first. We disagreed on which constituted the "simplest win". Engines calculate thousands or even millions of positions and favor the win requiring the fewest moves. "Simple" to the human relies upon recognition of "patterns," but may differ between players of approximate equal strength.

OK, I meant, I wasn't arguing 50% meant low tactical ability anyway.

I would do the same thing (create the passed pawn). It's like, things are more concrete and visible when you have a lone pawn instead of just a majority.

And maybe move the king to the black pawns with the e4 route.