Tactics Rating- What it Says about You

I would contend that chess tactics, and your rating, represents the ‘ceiling’ of your chess potential. However, I am uncertain how accurate the tactics ratings are in relation to actual gameplay ratings, but theoretically, I would contend that if you are a 1000 rated player and have a 1300 rated tactics rating, that if you played to your “full” potential, you could compete and even beat a player that is equal to your tactics rating.

Tactics rating?

Puzzles rating*

If you go to the leaderboards you can see that the top puzzle rating right now is a massive 65.535.

The puzzle rating and the chess ratings are two different rating systems and it seems to me that there is no reason why a person should get the same rating in both.

Not quite.  But I would say that if you are playing someone whose puzzle rating is equal to yours, it's likely an even match--even if your game ratings differ by a couple hundred points.

Game ratings are based a lot on the level of people you play, and can be manipulated.  (I recently played someone whose game rating was less than 1100 and thought there is no way this person is a weak player.  Turns out, this person timed out in about 60 games a couple months ago, plunging the rating.)  You cannot manipulate your puzzle rating though.

Agreed Jim and thanks for the insight, Mike. My question would then be who determines the ratings of difficulty for the tactics/puzzles, and how that whole metric is determined, and why not try and connect the two?

bruh look at my puzzle rating and then take a look at my blitz rating

Right, as Mike and Jim have pointed out, there is no connection, but I think there should be, or someone should try. Really impressive puzzles rating though. Nice work!

You are really reading into it quite wrong... the ratings for tactics are just inflated and that's that.

That's actually a massive difference in rating, do you take your time with the puzzles or what? Regardless, quite impressive.

“@krazeechess ‘bruh look at my puzzle rating and then take a look at my blitz rating’”

Here I would actually still have a point. Say that the average blitz ratings for players with a puzzles rating of 2800 is much higher than your rating of 1600. My point is, you would still be able to compete with the players that have the puzzles ratings that are the same as yours even if they have the higher blitz rating.

(Provided the frequency that they use and play the puzzles, which of course could have an algorithm to go along with that as well).

That’s the reason I prefaced my unknowing of the correlation of the two ratings (blitz and puzzles) but still think they have relation

They have a correlation in that tactics are just one skillset that you can improve in. But just because you are not as good in tactics, you can be better at other areas of chess like the opening or endgames. Calculation, intuition, resourcefulness and more. 

Right @rEvoccr, that’s essentially what my point is, that tactics simply represent the best ‘you’ that you could be today. Yes you can improve openings and other aspects of chess, but you can still only be as good as you currently are at tactics.

That makes little sense. :/

When I was 1800 blitz I had a 2600 tactics rating. Now I'm 2200 and I still have a 2600 tactics rating. You're saying I can't wallop my old self? 

I'd argue the opposite. If two people's ratings differ by a couple hundred, but their tactics are the same, then the higher rated person is much more likely to win because he has a better feel of the game, instead of relying on tactics.

So b1zmark, what do you think was the driving force behind you going up 400 in blitz? I would argue that your tactical skill allowed you to first and foremost. If you don’t have a tactical ability that is sufficient enough for that level of play, you won’t ever play at that level. So in many senses, you and the player you were before, are the same. Now that’s not to say you haven’t developed different strategies and have repositioned your style of play to be more suitable for your tactical style.

Why doesn't midgame and positional knowledge represent the bests "you" that you can be today? You can improve tactics and other aspects of chess but you can still only be as good as your current positional and strategic understanding... you can phrase it the same the other way round.

I have 2540 in puzzles, 1700 for 3 day ( i have been 1800s) 1200 in blitz . I play puzzle and corresponance only. Maybe 2 or 3 games a year of blitz. I found it with tests and other games too...that my relaxed non competitive level is much higher than the competitive. I don't study openings at all so there is not much point of doing good tactics in a lost position.