Giving up on Tactics

I think you are talking about this game. The puzzle must start after black move Ke7.

Then your moves should be. 1. Re1+ Re6 (or 1....Qe6 2. Rxe6+ 3. Rxe6, or 1. ..Kf6 2. Re6+  Rxe6 3. Qxe6+ checkmate ) 2. Rxe6+ Qxe6 3. Qxe6+ Kf8(3... Ke7  4. Qxe7+mate ) 4. Nh7+mate   should be the solution. If you do alternative moves, you wont get mate in 4 anymore.

I question whether the tactics server is "honest"  I have runs of great performance where I am in the 1300's for a week and runs where I fall back into the 1100's.  The scoring just seems to get tougher and the puzzles more ... intricate.  It seems unlikely that my performance is varying that much.  I don't have bursts of genius and moronic plunges in any other domain of my life.  I wonder if perhaps we might start a discussion under the heading, Is the Tactics Server Honest?, and put our heads together to see what is going on.   By the way, MICKINMD, where did you get that splendid performance summary you posted?

N

Guys, I'd like to make a comment....I've been working on a few tactics consistently daily, and my rating has shot up over 700 rating points... My rating (USCF) increased over 400+ points to around 1200-1300-ish, and my rating is still rising. I liked Chess Tempo initially, and still think it is a better option, but the fact that I can analyze my mistake using the computer helps me understand the tactical pattern, and I get better. (FYI I am 13)

So yeah, it doesn't have a mistake....I'd recommend Jeremy Silman or James Eade's Chess for Dummies @Hamur. Turn to the tactics part, and it'll really help your tactical thinking process out, and it will help you become a better chess player, too. (My rating has shot up from around a 1100 to an 1845 in tactics in just a few months by reading these books/improving my chess)

I think the Tactics is okay, but the problem is sometimes there are two pieces you can use to accomplish the same end, but Tactics only ever has one solution, so then you need to try and guess which one will be correct.

The one "a few days ago" is not the third last tactics exercise, which I did on the day of that comment, and I'm not going digging to find it.  It involved the exchange of my queen for two rooks, leaving black with a queen but no rooks and me with rooks but no queen.  Thats why i said "you could find that one and explain it to me, but that doesn't deal with the underlying problem" , which was a statement intended to discourage what you did.  I think I got the one I was talking about right or mostly right,  based on thinking "this algorithm likes exchanging a queen for other pieces" but didn't understand why it would leave me in a better position and the analysis didn't help me understand afterwards.  There was no mate in some small number of moves after that, I couldn't see more material advantage accruing, the analysis rated the position positively but i couldn't SEE the decisive advantage.  Thinking "the computer is likely to want me to do this" is a terrible reason for doing anything, thats teaching me about an algorithm, not about the game.  

" It involved the exchange of my queen for two rooks, leaving black with a queen but no rooks and me with rooks but no queen."

I looked at the problem (0149221). You shouldn't only focus on the end result of the puzzle. You should also see what are the problems in the starting position. The puzzle solution was the only way to avoid losing a skewered rook. So you didn't gain any advantage, but you avoided immediate loss.

Generally speaking I haven't seen any incorrect puzzles here. If two moves appear equal then since any position can have only one right move (the puzzle stops where there are multiple ways to continue) this is a huge hint: either there is a particular reason why only one of these moves is strong, or neither of these moves is any good and you need to look for something else.

Bertha,

Thanks for the explanation, its the kind of background that I would have liked to have access to to understand that problem after I've done it and I'm looking at it going "hmmm, I'm not sure I like the resulting position".  I don't doubt that the technical quality of the problems is good, they would be being checked mechanically, by the site staff and by the users, its my ability to understand the material thats the issue and some fairly brief clues for the post mortem would be useful.  

@BobbyTalparov , thats why i m now doing ,TT unrated and customized ,you can choose a tactic theme and the ratingrange ,also you can get hints in the unrated mode 

I jus realized that I am wasting my time on this. I just can't stay over 900 rating. I seem to be getting worse. we have just so many minutes of life . maybe I should stop wasting mine on chess.

what do you want out of the game? if you are struggling now, you are prob never gonna reach even expert. which is ok, so long as that is not your goal. if your goal is to have fun, stay, if your goal is to improve, see what the problem is, and possibly stay. if not then leave.

trust me, they are plenty of players much stronger than you (1800- low master) who hate how much time they wasted to get decent at this game for little extrinsic reward.  some of these promising lads end up making a killing at poker, or in other areas. truth be told the amount of dedication good players have forward chess is very rare almost anywhere else in the "real world", and if you pick right can get you top dollar.

stop randomly posting and start analyzing it. Qh5+? delays the end of the game 2 moves and that'ss only if you repeat position and then play Qh4+. You need to cover g3 when checking.

I don't think I'm "randomly posting".  I think my point is, both of those scenarios offer a 100% chance at mate, so having one be wrong seems weird.  What are we worried about, a certain number of chess moves will be made and then the universe will no longer allow chess?  LOL