Tactics Rating

There is a sense in which it is demoralizing to work getting 8-9 in a row right over the course of a while, only to have it all destroyed with one wrong answer, wiping out all of your progress and then some. You crawl along at +1 +1+1+1+1+1+1+1 forever, then get one wrong, and the goddamn walls come crashing down, like -20, and your whole session is for nothing. 

At least it has become challenging again.  The idea that the target for a 3-move solution in a complicated position is 9 seconds is means you want people to jump at the first idea and not do proper thinking, so you are better off taking your time for 1 point rather than develop bad habits. Hopefully, one day someone with a better feel for how the system should world will correct the algorithms involved.

That's just it....if you do actually take your time and think it through properly, you are penalized with a worthless +1 because you didn't solve it in the 13 seconds it said you were supposed to. So you get this uncomfortable sense that you are rushed, so you try to get in something before too long goes by, but then they just take 15 pts away and it was all for nothing.

I mean I get it. Discipline, training, it's supposed to be tough and make you work hard to improve. But the ridiculous solve times and the rush forces more mistakes than you'd otherwise have. It's not about getting them right, where you could do 100 right in a row and get 100 pts, you have to blitz them, and that invites disaster. If they want to cultivate proper and good thinking, you'd want to insure a little more time. I get it that in a real game you don't have 10 minutes to figure out if a tactic is there or you lose on time. But there should be a more realistic balance I'd think.

It's probably only demoralizing  if a high rating is your goal. In your example how can 9 out of 10 right be demoraizing? The game of chess is a lot like what you describe. You can make 9 really good moves in a row, but the tenth move, if it's bad enough, will wipe out all your progress and lose the game.

chess.com puzzles are still way easier than other sites and u can get bogus rating from chess.com.  Many 2500 puzzles from here are way too easy to solve in a few minutes but 2000 puzzles in other sites are way harder.I have 2300+ in chess.com but struggling to get 1800-2000 in other sites. 

Because your one wrong move can decide that you will lose the game or you won't realize your attack plans.

The new algorithm is basically tactics for blitz games where time is of the essence, rather than for classical games where it is not so much. But focusing on the latter is better for chess development of lower rated players.

The feeling of being rushed is good, it gets the adrenaline flowing and simulates a real game scenario where the clock is ticking.

some are complaining about losing so many points for an incorrect answer yet it is worth noting that most have higher tactics ratigngs than normal ones, so maybe they are not deducting enough points !!

Lots of comments here suggesting that people should get lots of points for every tactical problem (lots of comments along the lines of +1 is not enough), but why get any points at all for solving problems that are rated below your current level?  There should be nothing but down-side from problems that are rated lower than you are, and little downside (and potentially significant upside) from problems rated higher than you are.  It feels like the points from the easy ones are more a kind of participation award than a measure of competence.  

I think he has a valid point. If he is making gains of one point, it's probably because he is at the level he should be. Making gains of plus 12 is for solving problems that are much too easy. I've been doing tactics here for about 3 years and have never had a gain of 12 for a problem (except maybe for the first day or two when my rating was stabilizing). As greghunt said, even a gain of one point is maybe too much for a problem that's easy, because if it's easy there should be an expectation to solve it.

What is the avg tactics trainer rating for IMs and GMs on chess.com? (so that I can know where I am in relation to them)

Yeah, no man it's true. I can't argue with that. I really could have been a lot better if I'd spent my time on tactics and chess study instead of banging your fat momma, but...I just couldn't resist. It was worth it though in the end. 

In a real game, if you make one tactical error, then you lose. Chess.com TT even gives you partial credit, which is wrong, because a partially "correct" tactic is wrong too, oftentimes even worse than just playing the first move wrong. 

In a real game, you are expected to take tactical opportunities and use them - it's normal.

By this logic, you get +1 (and sometimes more, if you're fast) and lose a lot of points if you're mistaken, and this seems fair enough. 

@skotheim 

Isn't this account yours: https://www.chess.com/member/adumbrate

?

lol

To me, the issue is that chess is a game that is not played quickly (leaving out speed chess), but where you are supposed to think and analyze. So when tactics punishes you for taking a few seconds more to do just that it really does not make sense. In a real game with normal time controls the right solution does not have have to be reached in 10 seconds to win a game.