Wow! Nice score. I can easily fix the over estimation but if it underestimates you strength, I'm not sure why. This test is meant to be a fun thing maybe for those who play on chess.com and not in real tournaments. The difference between this and tactics trainer is that these aren't all tactics perse. It is similar though.
New Elo Estimator
Sort:
youngrema wrote:
The difference between this and tactics trainer is that these aren't all tactics perse.
Would you care to enlighten me? Please tell me which one of these puzzles isn't tactical.
GeorgeBlackChess123 wrote:
There must be a glitch...
Easy to do it after looking at the solutions in this thread, George.
To the OP: nice job, keep improving it, and you can compete with tactics trainer.
Include:
- PGN analysis afterwards
- possibility to play more than just 1 move on the board (but make sure there are no ambiguous solutions - this is where tactics trainer is currently failing!)
- Timer
and it will be perfect!
Jan 23, 2014
0
#45
it said I was round 1680 Strenght, maybe tactically, but in terms of endgames I am worthless
waffllemaster wrote:
The problem on post #14 is a bit of a cook since Qxe6+ is also completely winning.
It's a mate in like 15 instead of a mate in 7.
I went through it incredibly quickly and got ~1700 or so. I was incredibly dissappointed when it didn't show any solutions. I took it again more carefully and got ~1900. I think it's fairly accurate.
ActiveKing wrote:
You are not nearly strong enough to create such a test.
Why would programming this require a strong mastery of chess?
This is a tactics test not a chess rating test.
There is an incredibly high correlation between tactical ability and chess strength. It's by far the best predictor of rating.
Most of these puzzles can be solved correctly without having the slightest clue as to the correct follow up, which is just terrible.
So you must have scored really well since it was so easy to guess the moves?
A timer is bad enough, having one that you don't tell people about is the most stupid thing that I have ever heard.
It wasn't "hidden". You do understand that there's a lot more going on in the software you use then what you can see in the gui, right?
If my elo is 1425 like your test told me it is I am going to kill myself, I'm not even bad tactically either.
Judging by your stats from this site I'd say 1425 is at least in the ball park of your rating.
Why would programming this require a strong mastery of chess?
This is a tactics test not a chess rating test.
There is an incredibly high correlation between tactical ability and chess strength. It's by far the best predictor of rating.
Most of these puzzles can be solved correctly without having the slightest clue as to the correct follow up, which is just terrible.
So you must have scored really well since it was so easy to guess the moves?
A timer is bad enough, having one that you don't tell people about is the most stupid thing that I have ever heard.
It wasn't "hidden". You do understand that there's a lot more going on in the software you use then what you can see in the gui, right?
If my elo is 1425 like your test told me it is I am going to kill myself, I'm not even bad tactically either.
Judging by your stats from this site I'd say 1425 is at least in the ball park of your rating.
First of all I want to thank you for making my day.
You are not nearly strong enough to create such a test.
Why would programming this require a strong mastery of chess?
Why would programming this require a strong mastery of chess?
Programming this wouldn't because this isn't a test of chess ability. An actual test of chess skill that requires the taker to posses positional and endgame understanding to score well could not be made by somebody who does not posses those skills themself without being seriously derivative.
This is a tactics test not a chess rating test.
There is an incredibly high correlation between tactical ability and chess strength. It's by far the best predictor of rating.
This is a tactics test not a chess rating test.
There is an incredibly high correlation between tactical ability and chess strength. It's by far the best predictor of rating.
No, there is not an incredibly high correlation, did you just make that up? Perhaps it is the best predictor, that somehow means that a test compiled of 100% tactical puzzles is better at judging strength than one compiled of many themes, tactics included? You're an idiot.
Most of these puzzles can be solved correctly without having the slightest clue as to the correct follow up, which is just terrible.
So you must have scored really well since it was so easy to guess the moves?
Most of these puzzles can be solved correctly without having the slightest clue as to the correct follow up, which is just terrible.
So you must have scored really well since it was so easy to guess the moves?
Your sarcastic comment doesn't actually relate to your point. No, I didn't guess and that wasn't even close to what I said. Sometimes it is obvious what move will start off a tactic (especially when you know that one is there because you are solving a puzzle...) but you often (or even usually) cannot see why it wins material.
A timer is bad enough, having one that you don't tell people about is the most stupid thing that I have ever heard.
It wasn't "hidden". You do understand that there's a lot more going on in the software you use then what you can see in the gui, right?
A timer is bad enough, having one that you don't tell people about is the most stupid thing that I have ever heard.
It wasn't "hidden". You do understand that there's a lot more going on in the software you use then what you can see in the gui, right?
Any user that was under the impression that they could take as long as they wanted (every user) and was taking the test at all seriously gets penalised because the OP was too stupid to think it was necessary to tell people that they were being timed and rated accordingly. The timer was a hidden as the reasoning as to how somebody as retarded as yourself ever even reached a rating of 1400.
If my elo is 1425 like your test told me it is I am going to kill myself, I'm not even bad tactically either.
Judging by your stats from this site I'd say 1425 is at least in the ball park of your rating.
You're an idiot if you believe that. On the other hand, if you just said it to get under the skin of somebody who has and is fully aware of their elo then you are equally stupid. That is not even close to my rating, not even close...
youngrema schreef:
Okay guys, I've been working on this for the past 48 hours and it's finally ready. I expect it to be a bit buggy, please bare with me, but please also do critisize. I expect the Elo to be slightly overestimated right now, but please let me know how accurate the results are that's the most important part. I think it would be cool if I could actually make this accurate and if people dig it, I'll buy a real domain name! Please give it a try and give me feedback, don't hold back if you think it sucks :)
http://rscorecalculator.com/chess/
edit: it may not look great on tablets or phones yet, sorry about that
Mine worked out inaccurately to my advantage, I got 1940 and I'm quite sure that's not my playing strength. But if you want to make the test as accurate as possible (without too many puzzles) I'd suggest a few things:
first off keep in mind chess strength is distributed (like many things) according to a standard deviation (or how it's called)
So the puzzles should be ranged from easier to more difficult (getting 100% or 0% should be almost impossible, and the most likely outcome will be average)
Also, the nature of the puzzles might be more diverse. (sometimes getting a decisive attack/or defending with the least loss etc.) in this way picking the right strategy plays a bigger part, much more like real chess. (maybe these puzzles were a bit much of the same nature, an in-between move would fit well for example).
Last thing may be 2 or 3 moves instead of one, if the situation calls for it, so you wouldn't be making the right moves for the wrong reasons.
Jan 23, 2014
0
#50
very true, maybe you should include a puzzle that includes the potential for a smother mate, or something like that, maybe feature a position where all you need to do was find the best way of controlling a key square
Any non-chess player could take a few positions and evaluate your choices based on what Stockfish thinks of the move. Next you'll say the chess.com devs all have to be GMs or the site won't suit the needs of chess players.
If you have a better idea for a way to estimate someone's ELO, why don't you suggest it? Tactics is a fantastic predictor whether you want to believe it or not. I know this because the dev of chesstempo has been adjusting his ELO predictor algorithm for a very long time and does so with statistics on how well official FIDE players score. I've also taken other ELO predictor tests using tactics in the past and they simply work. It's not perfect but it ALWAYS puts you in the right ballpark.
Sometimes it is obvious what move will start off a tactic..
So obvious that you managed only to score in the 1400 range.
I agree that the participants should be informed the puzzles are timed, the part of your statement I took issue with is implying he hid the timer as if to intentionally mislead the people taking the test.
That is not even close to my rating, not even close...
Your blitz here is 1450 which may be inflated because your average opponent is a 1250. Standard live would be more revealing but you've only played 8 games which is not nearly a big enough sample size to be accurate. Your online is 1800 but, again, your average opponent there is only 1480. Keep in mind chess.com online ratings are *heavily* inflated as compared to FIDE elo. I achieved my 2050 with considerable ease. If you look at my game history I was continuing to climb and climb. But my elo in real life is more accurately in the 1800-1900 range. Maybe 2000 if I'm lucky. I haven't played enough rated games in person to even get an official rating yet or I could say for sure.
So why don't you tell us your real rating if you're so confident this test is wrong?
I didn't know that time affected the estimated rating, so when I returned to my computer after an hour's break and finished the puzzles, I got a triple digit rating. 
Most of your post is either a demonstration of how you didn't understand various things that I said or a repeat of a previous weak points that you made and I CBA to address all of that again.
As to the last part, why would playing lower rated players give you an inflated rating? Also, I never said this test was inaccurate, I said it tests tactics, not chess ability which even though you don't seem to understand are two totally different things. It probably tests tactical ability fairly well, I don't know or care.
Saying that I scored 1425 wasn't important, I should have left that out, so I had a bad few minutes tactically, really wasn't important. Anyway my real rating is none of your business, I would have stated it on my profile if I wanted to share it. As for chess.com ratings, maybe you should consult some actual statistics before bullshiting.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/fide-ratings-vs-chesscom-ratings-explored
"Chess is 99 percent tactics." - Teichmann
As to the last part, why would playing lower rated players give you an inflated rating?
Because you can get away with things against low players that would never work at a higher level. For instance, if you play only 1200 players then you may never see an endgame 9 times out of 10. They will probably simply miss pieces hanging or blunder the game in some other way. So if you were to play a stronger player and had to hold a draw in an endgame, you may not be up to the challenge. Playing low rated players is psychologically very easy as well. Having a bad position for an extended period of time against someone very good is mentally exhausting.
Good link, I will take a look.
Many of your criticisms were unfounded in my opinion, but it's really nothing personal so I find your petty insults a little unnecessary. I'm not trying to "get under [your] skin". You act as if this test was not even close to your real elo, but frankly I just don't believe you. That's fine if you don't want to share, but it doesn't help your claim any.
@ 9k7k - 1random was being sarcastic.
@ 1random - Tactics are used in every game, so that makes them 100% of chess? Football players run every game, is the ability to run fast and for long periods of time 100% of the skills required to play that game?
ActiveKing wrote:
@ 1random - Tactics are used in every game, so that makes them 100% of chess? Football players run every game, is the ability to run fast and for long periods of time 100% of the skills required to play that game?
Very high correlation. Why else would the 10m dash (or whatever distance they use) time be so important at the Combine for players looking to be drafted?
You weren't being sarcastic? You believe that tactics are used in 1% of chess games? Oh I meant to ask you last time but I forgot: you had a tactics rating more than 1000 higher than you do now, what is the missing link there?
Here's a challenge for you:
Find me one high level game where the play was not dictated in some way by tactical shots. GM draws don't count.
There is yet another example of you not reading what I say.
Seems like everyone who has been complaining has gotten a rating below what they thought they were..
Yes, I only think am higher than 1425...
Anyway, this just further helps the case that it inaccurate, it has nothing to do with my motivation to make my post. I know my chess strength, that isn't why I took the test.