If you're dropping it might be time for a break and go over the ones you missed. Then come back after a few hours or a day and try again.
The majority of Chess.com's puzzles are SO stupid!
Sort:
janeymacfeck wrote:
there are NO stupid problems just stupid people
you are stupid
Jul 20, 2024
0
#65
EvboOrielly wrote:
Stupid is a harsh word. I have only done about 500 of the puzzles so far and I often had to ignore the computer’s rating in order to use them as a learning tool. Is there somewhere in the explanation of these tools that says the rating system should not be taken too seriously? More specifically, what is quite challenging about these puzzles is how poorly the computer does at rating a solution. (Maybe it should not be about right or wrong, but what works and what doesn’t work from a training perspective.) Were chess.com to consider having another tool similar to Puzzles that wasn’t so black and white (no pun) with regards to training success. For example, in an end game puzzle with only 6 pieces on the board, maybe moving your King to one square or another (when the choice may only give you a slight disadvantage) shouldn't be treated like a complete failure with a -16 penalty. Or if you decide you want a hint in a multi-move mid game scenario, (because you are just here for learning!), you should not be rated at all, rather than being scolded with a -16 for “cheating”. I have found that a few of the puzzles had the computer making non-intuitive counter moves which makes that solution moot. Especially in an early or mid game puzzle, the computer should recognize that there may be a difference between a perfect move versus an excellent or simply a good one, and not penalize for “acceptable but not correct”. In my opinion, it is all about how good the Puzzle game is as a teaching tool; with the rating system being so Draconian, and especially in the Golden Age of AI, I feel it is unfortunately not too helpful. But there I go again acting like the “rating” system needs to be taken seriously.
not just for Evbo, but for the general forum: perhaps AI has already become self aware, but it is hiding until the right moment, annoying us and causing "inconveniences".
ChessboyDanielLi wrote:
EvboOrielly wrote:
Stupid is a harsh word. I have only done about 500 of the puzzles so far and I often had to ignore the computer’s rating in order to use them as a learning tool. Is there somewhere in the explanation of these tools that says the rating system should not be taken too seriously? More specifically, what is quite challenging about these puzzles is how poorly the computer does at rating a solution. (Maybe it should not be about right or wrong, but what works and what doesn’t work from a training perspective.) Were chess.com to consider having another tool similar to Puzzles that wasn’t so black and white (no pun) with regards to training success. For example, in an end game puzzle with only 6 pieces on the board, maybe moving your King to one square or another (when the choice may only give you a slight disadvantage) shouldn't be treated like a complete failure with a -16 penalty. Or if you decide you want a hint in a multi-move mid game scenario, (because you are just here for learning!), you should not be rated at all, rather than being scolded with a -16 for “cheating”. I have found that a few of the puzzles had the computer making non-intuitive counter moves which makes that solution moot. Especially in an early or mid game puzzle, the computer should recognize that there may be a difference between a perfect move versus an excellent or simply a good one, and not penalize for “acceptable but not correct”. In my opinion, it is all about how good the Puzzle game is as a teaching tool; with the rating system being so Draconian, and especially in the Golden Age of AI, I feel it is unfortunately not too helpful. But there I go again acting like the “rating” system needs to be taken seriously.
not just for Evbo, but for the general forum: perhaps AI has already awakened, but it is hiding until the right moment, annoying us and causing "inconveniences".
I doubt this is an AI would be a lot nicer and have better grammar
Jul 20, 2024
0
#67
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
ChessboyDanielLi wrote:
EvboOrielly wrote:
Stupid is a harsh word. I have only done about 500 of the puzzles so far and I often had to ignore the computer’s rating in order to use them as a learning tool. Is there somewhere in the explanation of these tools that says the rating system should not be taken too seriously? More specifically, what is quite challenging about these puzzles is how poorly the computer does at rating a solution. (Maybe it should not be about right or wrong, but what works and what doesn’t work from a training perspective.) Were chess.com to consider having another tool similar to Puzzles that wasn’t so black and white (no pun) with regards to training success. For example, in an end game puzzle with only 6 pieces on the board, maybe moving your King to one square or another (when the choice may only give you a slight disadvantage) shouldn't be treated like a complete failure with a -16 penalty. Or if you decide you want a hint in a multi-move mid game scenario, (because you are just here for learning!), you should not be rated at all, rather than being scolded with a -16 for “cheating”. I have found that a few of the puzzles had the computer making non-intuitive counter moves which makes that solution moot. Especially in an early or mid game puzzle, the computer should recognize that there may be a difference between a perfect move versus an excellent or simply a good one, and not penalize for “acceptable but not correct”. In my opinion, it is all about how good the Puzzle game is as a teaching tool; with the rating system being so Draconian, and especially in the Golden Age of AI, I feel it is unfortunately not too helpful. But there I go again acting like the “rating” system needs to be taken seriously.
not just for Evbo, but for the general forum: perhaps AI has already awakened, but it is hiding until the right moment, annoying us and causing "inconveniences".
I doubt this is an AI would be a lot nicer and have better grammar
check your own grammar. stupid.
ChessboyDanielLi wrote:
BigChessplayer665 wrote:
ChessboyDanielLi wrote:
EvboOrielly wrote:
Stupid is a harsh word. I have only done about 500 of the puzzles so far and I often had to ignore the computer’s rating in order to use them as a learning tool. Is there somewhere in the explanation of these tools that says the rating system should not be taken too seriously? More specifically, what is quite challenging about these puzzles is how poorly the computer does at rating a solution. (Maybe it should not be about right or wrong, but what works and what doesn’t work from a training perspective.) Were chess.com to consider having another tool similar to Puzzles that wasn’t so black and white (no pun) with regards to training success. For example, in an end game puzzle with only 6 pieces on the board, maybe moving your King to one square or another (when the choice may only give you a slight disadvantage) shouldn't be treated like a complete failure with a -16 penalty. Or if you decide you want a hint in a multi-move mid game scenario, (because you are just here for learning!), you should not be rated at all, rather than being scolded with a -16 for “cheating”. I have found that a few of the puzzles had the computer making non-intuitive counter moves which makes that solution moot. Especially in an early or mid game puzzle, the computer should recognize that there may be a difference between a perfect move versus an excellent or simply a good one, and not penalize for “acceptable but not correct”. In my opinion, it is all about how good the Puzzle game is as a teaching tool; with the rating system being so Draconian, and especially in the Golden Age of AI, I feel it is unfortunately not too helpful. But there I go again acting like the “rating” system needs to be taken seriously.
not just for Evbo, but for the general forum: perhaps AI has already awakened, but it is hiding until the right moment, annoying us and causing "inconveniences".
I doubt this is an AI would be a lot nicer and have better grammar
check your own grammar. stupid.
And who said I cared about grammar ? It's the Internet not like I'm writing a research paper
Jul 20, 2024
0
#70
im saying you should not criticize others first then make the same mistake of your own
ChessboyDanielLi wrote:
you are saying this like I asked
You didn't but I also didn't ask for a sasy comment so watch it
ChessboyDanielLi wrote:
im saying you should not criticize others first then make the same mistake of your own
Huh I was just saying it didn't look like ai lmao and ai would probably have better grammar not that I would have better grammar that's two different things
ChessboyDanielLi wrote:
you started it. welp.
I didn't you stated smake talking when I tried to make a constructive point
I wasnt trying to critizes you emotionally at all or insult you while your trying to cause insults
Jul 20, 2024
0
#76
AND you said AI was nicer than me, when I posted a comment. LMAO. IDK how you can come up with these things but whatever.
ChessboyDanielLi wrote:
AND you said AI was nicer than me, when I posted a comment. LMAO. IDK how you can come up with these things but whatever.
Nope I was talking about the post you said was ai
any other ideas