MuhammadAreez10 írta:
Never?
By the looks of it.
TT Scoring system
Sort:
I'll wait a year. I won't accept something buggy even if it's early.
MuhammadAreez10 írta:
I'll wait a year. I won't accept something buggy even if it's early.
Ah, but you see, it's in the making for the past 3 years or so already.
I've been here for about a year. And I've always seen people talk about V3. When will V4 be implemented?!
I can confirm that the TT changed in V3 (which seems to be available for premium members for testing/feedback purposes). Even if you take a large amount of time, if you solved the tactic correctly, you don't lose any points. You still lose quite some points (e.g. 7) when you make the wrong move, but IMO that's what we want, to discourage people to gamble-guess the move and skewing the average solve times in the case they're lucky.
IMO, they haven't found the sweet spot for TT yet. If you need 5 min to solve a tactic, there's no way you would have found it in a real game where nobody is telling you there's a tactic to look for. So you should lose points in that case.
What people mainly dislike are the large swings in their rating points and the fact that harsh rating punishments seem to prevent them to make any progress. It seems that CT solves this problem better: you can gain points but always small amounts, and when you're not fast enough you also lose only small amounts of points. Overall, CT gives you the feeling that you're progressing very slowly but certainly, which is motivating to continue. I didn't have the same feeling with the old TT, but perhaps the new TT is better, I'll be trying it the coming weeks intensively.
There is another tricky thing that the TT staff needs to take care of. You can't simply calculate the average solve time by taking the mean of the solve times of all people that correctly solve the tactic. If you do, the average solve time will gradually move to lower values over time, simply because of an accumulation of people who gamble-guessed the right move. If they were lucky they enter an unrealistic solve time, if they fail their time is evidently not included in the average solve time.
I've seen many mate-in-4 tactics with amazingly low average solve times, for which I really wonder whether you can check all variations beforehand in such a short time. What happened more likely, I think, is that some people gamble-guessed the first move correctly, and were then helped by the new board visualisation to solve the rest of the tactic. Again, those gamblers who failed to make the correct first move do not show up in the average solve times.
There are a few ways that could be tried to improve upon this. First, it may be more robust to calculate the median solve time rather than the mean solve time. Secondly, when somebody fails a tactic, you can still insert a new "solve" time, which you can take e.g. to be the current average solve time. This could compensate the very low solve times of the lucky gamblers.
The answer is: Don't care about those points, but enjoy the puzzles.
It amazes me that people are still willing to wait years, almost religiously, for a somewhat slightly improved V3 of Tactics Trainer like some sort of coming of the Messiah. When really there are already perfect tactics trainers out there now. These are already better than any V3 could be anyway.
The present TT is poor
I like the interface, but
1. You should not get a time penalty for a correct answer a simple zero is fine
2. The reward v punishment for a wrong answer is way off, it is heavily skewed to the time taken, not ideal for thoughtful chess.
3. It is notable that some exteremely complex problems with long time allowances are often low graded, in my opinion some idiots are using an engine and thus deflating the rating.
4. Stop showing time allowed, you do not have this information in a game.
5. The system of rewards should be progressive to give positive feedback and thus motivate players to train more.
By way of an example here, I have just completed 5 problems, 4 correct one wrong, my net gain was 3 after the deduction of points for time.
There is no way I will make progress to more difficult problems like this.
Apr 3, 2015
0
#32
Some great comments here everyone ... I feel a sort of (stupid) loyalty to chess.com so will wait V3 ... but not forever ... maybe a comment from Staff would be helpfull...when is version 3 coming or what tweeks are being made to prevent the obvious frustration that a lot of members are feeling.
PhilJC írta:
Nothing from Staff ... not a way to run a successful business.
No one here works full time, that's why.
Benedictine wrote:
Well Chess Tempo for one, what I use, but there are other trainers like CT Art or Chessimo, anything but Tactics Trainer.
Yep. But it is also worthwhile to note that using all of these, collectively, serve as a good measure for where your strength really is. I have been frustrated by TT because my rating sits at 500 pts less than my other ratings, e.g., CT-Art. Now it is only 300 pts behind, but by keeping track of all of my ratings from every server and piece of software, I know that I did not magically gain a couple of hundred points this past week, but that I am probably gaming the TT better than I have been. (I just did de la Maza's "Seven Circles" training program, and all of my tactics ratings across the software and servers I use went up 300 points, e.g., CT-Art went from 1850 to 2150, but my TT didn't move.)
Also, I'd like to suggest chess.emrald.net. You can get in 250-500 problems super, super quickly, if you want to switch things up --and they do it correctly: unlike TT, chess.emrald.net usually has only one winning move, not a plethora to choose from and then get it wrong on the basis of not having the time to decide which winning move is best.
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
PhilJC írta:
Nothing from Staff ... not a way to run a successful business.
No one here works full time, that's why.
GnrfFrtzl wrote:
PhilJC írta:
Nothing from Staff ... not a way to run a successful business.
No one here works full time, that's why.
So what are you doing with the money ?
Jun 10, 2015
0
#39
Ok GnrfFrtzl ... I'm assuming you are staff ... let me ask of you ... how many thousands of customers are on-line right now ... paying customers ... and "No one works full time"?
Ok ... but ... members are frustrated with the scoring system ... it is overly onerous ... even if you get a correct answer you still lose points ... and that should not be the case ... maybe only a point for slow-but-correct answers ... but change is asked for and no commitments are forthcoming from (part-time) staff ... comment please?
Never?