Why am I almost 1000 points higher in puzzle rating VS rapid?

Sort:
pot_ate

Man, my puzzles is nearly 2x my Rapid. (More like 1.8x)

Sometimes I get extremely difficult puzzles and I solve them.. And I see only ~5% of people solved it correctly. Then I feel proud. And get humbled by the next puzzle.

Anyways yeah, the puzzle ratings are pretty inaccurate till ~2800. Then, most of the stuff get serious. A GM could still probably solve it like backrank M1 lol.

ImTrashLOL_91
Hoffmann713 wrote:

Well, the facts are these. I solved my first puzzle eight months ago, right here ( never tried it before ). Since then, I've solved more than 7000, but my playing level ( look at rapid rating ) has grown very little. What I've always complained about is the fact that those combinations I can find in the puzzles I can never find in the real game. And I've always attributed this to the fact that it's easy to find them when you know they're there, difficult when no one tells you.

Perhaps another explanation could be the following. My weaknesses in the game ( bad understanding of principles, tendency to get distracted and make inevitable blunders etc. ) are so important that even an improvement in calculation has no influence. That's why I basically convinced myself that solving puzzles is ultimately less important than other factors in order to improve at chess.

But at this point I'm curious. Is it possible that I am the only case? Does anyone like me uselessly solved so many puzzles without real benefit?

I'm jut like you. lol. Just reached a 2000 puzzle rating. I'm rapid 700.

Hoffmann713
ImTrashLOL_91 ha scritto:
Hoffmann713 wrote:

Well, the facts are these. I solved my first puzzle eight months ago, right here ( never tried it before ). Since then, I've solved more than 7000, but my playing level ( look at rapid rating ) has grown very little. What I've always complained about is the fact that those combinations I can find in the puzzles I can never find in the real game. And I've always attributed this to the fact that it's easy to find them when you know they're there, difficult when no one tells you.

Perhaps another explanation could be the following. My weaknesses in the game ( bad understanding of principles, tendency to get distracted and make inevitable blunders etc. ) are so important that even an improvement in calculation has no influence. That's why I basically convinced myself that solving puzzles is ultimately less important than other factors in order to improve at chess.

But at this point I'm curious. Is it possible that I am the only case? Does anyone like me uselessly solved so many puzzles without real benefit?

I'm jut like you. lol. Just reached a 2000 puzzle rating. I'm rapid 700.

It's been a long time since I wrote those things. In the meantime I stopped asking myself how useful puzzles are, and continued solving them because I like it.

Currently I prefer solving puzzles in books, not online. Online puzzles are interactive: you make the first move, the one that seems right to you, and "hope for the best"... then you move forward step by step. The temptation to do so is strong.

Instead, in book puzzles you are forced to calculate the intere right sequence with all the possible variations. So, I reproduce the position on the physical chessboard and try to calculate everything. I think this ( maybe ) is the right way to solve puzzles. I don't know if this exercise is useful to me or not, but I certainly enjoy it a lot, as before.