Crazy Programs

I commonly train using my program "Chess Tactics for Intermediate Players", and do their tests to get an estimated rating. It keeps saying I preform above 2000 but i'm only a 1600 player in the USCF. Are all tactics programs like this?

Most tactics trainers (CT ART, even the chess.com trainer) have some system of assigning you a number based on your success %age.  It's just a number that gets higher as you do better ... there's no baseline rule to make it "map" to the ELO/USCF system, in fact I think it's a little devious that they pick our lovable 0-2800 scale to do this! Why not just 0-800? or 0-1000?   I'm sure the software developers are fully aware that armchair chess narcissists out there like to get the warm fuzzies to see a near-2000 number pasted next to their name, when their actual chess rating  may be far lower.   I remember when I was a 1300 USCF and saw a 2000+ score during my  C.T.ART practice; I felt I was a tactical wizard! Though at the OTB tournament next week,  reality made its presence felt and I realized that I had a long way to go before my actual rating would even get close. I'm presently 1700 USCF and these days I'm less swayed by "test your Chess" quizzes that tell me that I'm seeing shots like a 2200+ player. Yeah right :)

It makes little sense to attempt to correlate this number, or even aptitude at puzzle solving to something much more comprehensive like OTB playing skill.   That's like saying that being good at Mario Kart should imply you're evidently trained enough to enter the Formula one circuit. 

 maybe the programs are right maybe you are 2000 rated in tactics.

Maybe you aren't in opening and ending that explains the 1600.

what I am trying to say it that rating is comprised of a lot of things.

not everything in a chess game is tactics.

Haha yea that makes more sense now. Its funny because I rarely use tactics in OTB games like the ones that are on the training program I use. Maybe I should start looking for them :)

A rating in one system doesn't translate to a rating in another system.  A FIDE rating and a USCF rating are not the same thing, and a chess.com rating doesn't compare to either of them, and a tactical rating from, say, the chess.com Tactics Trainer doesn't compare to any of those.

In theory, you can also be good at tactics, but horrible at openings, horrible at positional play, and horrible at endgames.  And if that is the case, you aren't going to get many opportunities to use a tactic that wins you the game.

A strong FIDE player 2000 rated told me that I might have to drop the Caro Kann in order to use opening that include more tactics.

If I meet a player that has prepared for Caro Kann I might never use tactics in that game because everything is so rock solid.

solid opening doesn't lead to tactics because everything is so rock solid.

I have a question about what opening lead to tactics''

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/opening-with-lots-of-tactics