TT ratings are EXTREMELY over rated if you solve enough of TT problems, they repeat and you know the answers and can get 100%, but it is sure fun though and the exercise is good for your chess.
How over-rated are tactics trainer ratings?
Sort:
Numbers like a TT rating are an approximate measure of tactical sharpness.
Only you can detect if at a glance of a position the tactical shot jumps up off the board and smacks you on the forehead.
The above is the true measure of tactical sharpness.
The rest is practice when you sense the sharpness fading.
fieldsofforce wrote:
Numbers like a TT rating are an approximate measure of tactical sharpness.
Only you can detect if at a glance of a position the tactical shot jumps up off the board and smacks you on the forehead.
The above is the true measure of tactical sharpness.
The rest is practice when you sense the sharpness fading.
It is all about practice and pattern recognition, during the game tactics do not just jump out at you most of the time unless you have seen similar patters before.
You can have any elo below or equal to your TT rating, but you will never have an elo above your TT rating.
denonatum wrote:
You can have any elo below or equal to your TT rating, but you will never have an elo above your TT rating.
I used to know a few people who did. It's a crapshoot. Just like all other online ratings.
My tactics training rating here is above my skill for sure. I never really cared much or paid attention to it though. It's just practise after all. I'm ok at puzzles though I think. Usually on tactics sites my rating fluctuates between 1900 to 2100. I get just as many wrong as I get right but I keep plugging away.
I don't really like their system of ratings. I mean, you get right a problem, they give you about 3 or 4 points. You fail one problem, and you can say byebye to 9 or 10 points.
It is very difficult to make progress like that.
Although you get a bonus for a quick solution, you can take as long as you like. Some of the positions I've spend more than 10 minutes and that's not practical if, like most players, you're playing rapid or faster games. So it would make sense that the tactics trainer should provide a better rating than the avg. live game on this site.
To give a most accurate assessment, tactic trainer ratings, U3200 to be exact, since some people memorize all of the tactics and get 10,000+, are 33% "overrated." Meaning a tactician rated 2700, for example, is approximately a 2025 in tactics. Take your tactics rating and multiply it by 0.75 and instant tactical evaluation to USCF!
SukerPuncher333:
my chess.com tactics rating is usually somewhere over 2700, today 2834 but I am 1350 USCF sooo I think that tactics rating meaningless
maestro-please schreef:
Vlad_Akselrod schreef:
They say so because tactics decides most games, but don't forget that in order to deliver a tactical blow your position must be good enough. If you're worse, then there just won't be any opportunities to show off your skills! So who cares if you can see a complicated mate in 7 in 10 secs if you get a lost position from the opening?
The reason why people spend more time discussing tactics is that it's fun and easy. Anyone can post a diagram with a nice tactical shot following, but you can't formulate that easily and quickly the beauty of your positional play which you demonstrated to outplay a person. It's much harder to perceive.
End of quote
I totally agree with this ! You can't make a blow whilst sacrificing a piece or some other tactic, if your position (read positional play straight from the opening or within the middlegame) didn't generate that final tactical blow. My OTB rating is 1800 and though I occassionally can peak games at 2050 , many times I choose the wrong strategy and find myself in hopeless , non defendable positions against weaker players at times. Sometimes playing against those I take risks and partially might get away with that. My tactics rating here is currently 1822 on lichess 2430 and on Chess tempo 1700 (blitz) and 1885 (standard or none time limitted). I was never a blitz monster (1530 on chess.com and 1820 on lichess.
I am a stress person and timecontrolls freak me out. I go in panic mode. Occassionally that happens in OTB games too, especially for reaching the 40th move.
A fide rating is composed of many aspects. Your openings and the sharpness of those , the strategies for both colors in each line. This enters then the strategies for your middlegame. Not to forget how to tackle the endgames (typical are pawn,rook and minor piece endings). Of couse managing timecontrolls matter too. Yes I agree that blunders factor in a lot. There are 2 kinds One being unforced blunders or missed opportunities , the second one is you akready had a very bad position and just couldnt oroceed with the thin red line to survive , hence were bound to step on one or the other landmine offered in sequence.
I'd say my openings (otb) are better then comparable players of my strength. My middlegame is also better but only if I'm in known opening strategy. If one put me off in sonething else , I often feel hopeless in triggering the right middlegame plan My endings (oth) are only slightly better then my avg otb rating. My tactics are still under my otb rating cause I lack to govern my time appropriately at the point it comes to tactics, or fail to convert simply because my scan was not large enough Its hard to find that one opportunity not knowing at which particular move/position you had a blow !
On tactics I sonetimes feel wtf, how can this be wining and 10 minutes later you'll find it altogether. But would you spend 10 minutes in a game knowing that each move you'd do that you could face serious tinecontroll issues ?
I never managed to manage the game to still have appropriate time by the time tactics come to play. I i see GMs play otb in tournaments, they spend so little time on the first 15 moves. I tend to spend a whole lot more especially in the early middlegame, figuring out the strategical line especially if in unknown territorry.
CerebralAssassin wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
The TT ratings were overrated when this thread began, but now they have reversed themselves. I find it very difficult to get my TT rating up to the level of my USCF rating.
it does seem that way doesn't it?I used to be able to get to 2100-2200 in TT....now I consider myself lucky to be able to maintain a 2000-ish rating
Now, more than a decade later, I feel that I am failing when my tactics rating is under 2900.
maestro-please schreef:
Vlad_Akselrod schreef:
They say so because tactics decides most games, but don't forget that in order to deliver a tactical blow your position must be good enough. If you're worse, then there just won't be any opportunities to show off your skills! So who cares if you can see a complicated mate in 7 in 10 secs if you get a lost position from the opening?
The reason why people spend more time discussing tactics is that it's fun and easy. Anyone can post a diagram with a nice tactical shot following, but you can't formulate that easily and quickly the beauty of your positional play which you demonstrated to outplay a person. It's much harder to perceive.
I totally agree with this ! You can't make a blow whilst sacrificing a piece or some other tactic, if your position (read positional play straight from the opening or within the middlegame) didn't generate that final tactical blow. My OTB rating is 1800 and though I occassionally can peak games at 2050 , many times I choose the wrong strategy and find myself in hopeless , non defendable positions against weaker players at times. Sometimes playing against those I take risks and partially might get away with that. My tactics rating here is currently 2068 on lichess 2430 and on Chess tempo 1640 (blitz) and 1885 (standard or none time limitted). I was never a blitz monster (1530 on chess.com and 1820 on lichess.
I am a stress person and timecontrolls freak me out. I go in panic mode. Occassionally that happens in OTB games too, especially for reaching the 40th move.
A fide rating is composed of many aspects. Your openings and the sharpness of those , the strategies for both colors in each line. This enters then the strategies for your middlegame. Not to forget how to tackle the endgames (typical are pawn,rook and minor piece endings). Of couse managing timecontrolls matter too. Yes I agree that blunders factor in a lot. There are 2 kinds One being unforced blunders or missed opportunities , the second one is you already had a very bad position and just couldnt proceed with the thin red line to survive , hence were bound to step on one or the other landmine offered in sequence.
I'd say my openings (otb) are better then comparable players of my strength. My middlegame is also better but only if I'm in a known opening strategy. If one put me off in something else , I often feel hopeless in triggering the right middlegame plan My endings (oth) are only slightly better then my avg otb rating. My tactics are still under my otb rating cause I lack to govern my time appropriately at the point it comes to tactics, or fail to convert simply because my scan was not large enough. Its hard to find that one opportunity not knowing at which particular move/position you had a blow !
On tactics I sonetimes feel wtf, how can this be wining and 10 minutes later you'll find it altogether. But would you spend 10 minutes in a game knowing that each move you'd do that you could face serious timecontrol issues ?
I never managed to manage the game to still have appropriate time by the time tactics come into play. If i see GMs play otb in tournaments, they spend so little time on the first 15 moves. I tend to spend a whole lot more especially in the early middlegame, figuring out the strategical line especially if in unknown territorry.
I agree that your rating in TT is just an indicator related to how you are imporving (or not). But how do you factor in the TT rating itself. That is, the TT that are rated 11XX are certainly not as difficult for me as those rated at 12XX?
Some of the problems in one rating range might be more readily in your mental pattern bank, whereas others are not, regardless of rating. The ratings of the problems tell you for whom the problems tend to be difficult, e.g., the problems in the 1300's tend --not always, but tend-- to be difficult for players rated 1200, and harder for players rated 1100, not so difficult for 1400's, etc. This is true for me. I have more trouble with patterns in certain rating ranges than others.