This website is an absolute joke

Yeah they made it super inflated a few weeks ago, got to 2000, now I'm down to 1700  tactics trainer feels cheap now

The point is if you're going to lose 11 points for failing a tactic, you should get 11 for solving it. It's pretty simple.

So an 1800 rated fails let's say a 1500 puzzle, gets -11. He's supposed to gain that same 11 points for solving the same puzzle rated 300 points below his rating? That makes no sense to me.

Bonsai_Dragon wrote:

The point is if you're going to lose 11 points for failing a tactic, you should get 11 for solving it. It's pretty simple.

Why would anyone care what their Tactics Training rating is? What does it matter?

A tactic is treated as a mini-game between you and a player rated whater the tactic is. In a game you don't usually get the same points for beating a player as you do for losing. You shouldn't on tactics either.

If you fail a lower rated tactic the point loss should be more than if you are successful and in general, if you solve a higher rated one, then you should get more for solving and less in failure.

Now, TT also has a time factor that can modify that, but that part of the tool is fine. The tactic selection could be more balanced, but the site is looking into that.

How do you know that? Are you the point of contact for this site? Staff member?

Agreed...chess.com members do tend towards the premature in terms of pleasure/enjoyment .

Well, staff answered not mods but it is at least being looked into. My one session today seeme a little better but still weighted in the low end, so there probably haven't been any changes yet.

I will agree that they need to give you more puzzles that are rated higher. I did 200 puzzles yesterday and a good amount of them were creampuff tactics. Bunch of mate in 1 or 2, take this completely undefeated piece, royal fork, etc.

? Gregor ?

So after literally going on tilt and going below 1500 (my tactics rating was 1820) I figured it out. 

I was on maybe an 11 hour binge with no sleep playing all night... 

I'm back up to mid 1700's.. so generally they'll give you a higher rated problem and then a few very low rated problems in a row ( part of my frustration before was I couldn't tell the rating difficulty of any of the problems. So I wasn't sure if I was putting in all my energy to solving a 1900 level problem or just 1200 for 1 pt. I'm getting more used to the algorithm now) . You just need to make sure NEVER to get those wrong. After watching Chessnetwork solve tactics problems I try to solve them all to the end.. sometimes you have to use intuition if you want to solve quickly. 

But ya. They changed the format, and now you get rated problems from all rating levels. 

points R pathetic 

to H E L L with THEM.

Now... now... isn't that a little extreme?

Thanks for relaying that info. Heads up everyone (especially those hitting themselves in the head with a ball-peen hammer). His post was based on his conversation with a staff member, so relax, it's still a "work in progress" thing.

not actually, macer..

look at above post about eleven points, the frustration with how tactics unfairly issues them.

My gripe is how they affect everyone as to how they find they represent their ability when their ability to this great game would efficiently soar were we never to have them at all.

I've reached the point where I'm glad for the intermittent challenging problems and pay little attention to how much I gain or lose because the rating system doesn't seem to be logical. If you let it it, it can really bother you after finding a solution that goes up in material a Q for a R yet you get penalized 15 points for not finding a better solution.  So I'm just going to get in some tactics work each day, do the best I can, and hope that one day chess.com figures out a better rating system. Strangely, even though the system was goofy before the April changes, at least I was able to get 5 out of every 6 right and stay at about the same rating except when I'd apparently improve and rise in rating.

That's true and an long-running joke, at least since 2007.

Due to the all the creampuff tactics you closed your account the day after?

[COMMA DELETED]