There is an analysis board on correspondence chess to play through forced sequences, plus the tactics trainer is a bit about how you work the system as much as your pure tactical ability e.g. If you're truly analysing all the defensive moves fully you'll be penalised for being slow.
A rating of 1300 with a online rating of 2200 is ridiculous though.
Tactics trainer problems have time limits measured in seconds. Correspondence games are often played at 3 days\move or more.
Yeah but they are both pattern recognition, certain tactics wouldn't cross your mind if you didn't already know them.
I'm rubbish at Chess.com's tactics trainer, but not tactics. Even when the tactic is a simple motif as soon as the timer starts ticking I just play some stupid move...
And Scottrf, if you really think tactics are just pattern recognition then maybe that's why you aren't progressing in correspondence.
"And Scottrf, if you really think tactics are just pattern recognition then maybe that's why you aren't progressing in correspondence."
Moronic comment, you can't read graphs?
Maybe if you don't it's why you aren't good at tactics trainer?
"And Scottrf, if you really think tactics are just pattern recognition then maybe that's why you aren't progressing in correspondence."
Moronic comment, you can't read graphs?
Maybe if you don't it's why you aren't good at tactics trainer?
I can indeed read graphs, however accessing them is something that I cannot do :)
However from your, annoyed response, I take it that you are progressing, just not so fast that I can notice it in the time that I have been on this site.
Why would I not be annoyed by a sarcastic and ignorant comment like that?
Take a look at my results if you can't see graphs...
Correspondence basically eliminates time pressure, and as such a lot of deep ideas are possible. Especially if you use the analysis board. Just as blitz and bullet can only roughly estimate your OTB playing strength, correspondence is the same way, but instead of seeing less than OTB, you are able to see more. It's a fun game for perfectionists -- you can often craft a fantastic game of chess when given the time, although it does lack some of the intensity of an OTB game. Still, I think it's a good alternative to have, and I often have some really interesting games.
By the way, I pretty strongly agree with scott about tactics and pattern recognition. If you can find a way to understand the patterns, that's what draws you to the possibility of a tactical idea, even without conscious thought.
There are also other tactics trainers out there. I always use chesstempo.com because it's free. They also don't make you lose points for spending too much time. Here I get 3/day and get penalized if I take time. A better thing might be to go by their live chess ratings, which tend to be lower than Online. Online chess seems to have a lot of wins by time.
Another idea would be to have the computer analyze them and see if they're all perfect games. :-p
I'm disabled and it sometimes takes me a while to both see and input a move. A lot of times the tactics trainer subtracts points even though I got the right solution because of the time I took. With a time limit of more than 30 seconds per move I can still play a pretty decent game even though you wouldn't think that because of my tactics score.
Why would I not be annoyed by a sarcastic and ignorant comment like that?
Take a look at my results if you can't see graphs...
I wasn't being sarcastic (though ignorance of your progress can't be helped), and what results are you talking about exactly? (Don't take offense at that, I really don't know what you mean...)
For me a fun exercise is to look at some computer analysis of a position, and try to make sense of it, as if I had to explain the variations to a student. Although computer analysis can be irrational and at times misleading, it exposes me to tons of new ideas I wouldn't have discovered otherwise; you just have to work with it a little bit.
I don't get this thing about the names. Chess sites don't really offer real ratings that apply anywhere outside of their domain. Sure, if Carlsen is playing then you might like to know that. If John Smith is #48,992,567 on FIDE's official rating list, one will not be likely to find out more than their name given to them by the chess website, which may not be their real name.
Good point ClavierCavalier
When comparing TT rating to online ratings few players seem to consider comparing the # of rated games with the # of TT positions attempted. I can solve probably 90% of the TT positions I've tried but often not by coming up with the correct moves on my first guess, er attempt. I also lose pts by not solving most TT positions quickly, but if they were positions in my games it wouldn't matter I'd find the right move (usually) by simply resorting to a brute force search if nothing else worked.
I see that this topic is a little old already, but I just wanted to add, from a personal perspective, that I never cheat at chess (you'll have to take my word for it), and have managed to get to a fairly respectable rating in the 1800s; however, I clearly suck at tactics, as I just can't hold it much above 1400. I don't understand the reason (as frustrating as it is), maybe time pressure, maybe not having my head in the game with tactics like in a real match. All I can present with certainty is a disparity which I assure you is not down to foul play on the board.
@leewestwood, you could try to rather think "if this was my game what would I play next" rather than "There has to be a tactic here". Try to ignore the fact you know there is a tactic and that the time is ticking and focus on getting the tactic correct and if you miss a tactic wait before doing the next tactic and ask yourself "why did I miss that?" (by being honest and not get mad at yourself). Also you could try to make only a few tactics/day (a good benefit of non-paying members to have a limit) to consentrate more on the few problems you make rather then many. You will lose some rating points for solving slowly, but later with the right train of thought in mind you will start solving faster and surely gain rating points. I can't guarantee this will work for you or if this would solve your issue, but it could be worth trying.
And by the way I also agree with scottrf about tactics and pattern recognition
Sometimes it takes me a few minutes to find the best move in a given position, but I'm often not able to see it when pressured by a clock ticking down from 30 seconds or whatever. That's why I suck at the tactics trainer but am much better at online correspondence chess. If I'm not pressured and have a couple days to find a good move, then I can do it. If you're forcing me to find the best move in less than a minute, I most likely won't be able to do it.
I always find it rather interesting when Correspondence chess players find brilliant 10+ move deep tactics or amazing tactical ingenuity.Whenever i come across one of these ( tactical monsters) i tend to click on their name and check out how great their tactics are. To my amazement i find that their tactical prowess is nowhere near as high as the game i have just played with the tactical genius indicates. I understand that not everyone wishes to solve tactical problems on chess.com and simply wishes to play a game of chess. But if a player smashes you to oblivion and as you check their tactical ability you check their tactics rating and it says ( rating-1300 with more than 100 hrs spent on tactics) but his Correspondence rating is 2200+ what then ? What should be made of players like this ? I think that players who would like to have an actual rating on major chess sites should have to put their names down so as you know who you are playing. Any thoughts on this and cheating on major chess sites ? Discussions welcome :) ?