Tried again got 9, 10 and 12.
What are your coordinate skills? ( test )
Sort:
Has anyone written a blog about this?
phenix28 wrote:
Bump I got 15 second try. When I was really sleepy I got 8
The frightening thing about it, that I can't improve, even if I practice. My bullet is terrible, but with a lot of play I can improve my rating in a cumbersome way bit by bit. But in coordinate training it is 21 for me. This is a glass ceiling - no breakthrough possible.
Aug 17, 2014
0
#28
@watcha - try again next year : regular chess practice will improve your results at this drill.
I think also you could get out a physical board and play out 1 game each day. After a month of this try again. I think physically moving the pieces to the sqaures will help.
13 as both Black and White on 1st tries. That's why I don't play Bullet and am not happy playing Blitz!
Bullet must have some ingredient apart from general chess knowledge. At every site that I play my bullet is way behind my other ratings. Below three minutes chess turns into a completely different game, where some mysterious skill begins to dominate that has little to do with chess understanding.
It is said that 2m+1s is equivalent to 3m+0s. But this is not the case: I'm underperforming seriously in 2+1 compared to 3+0. May be different people play 2+1 than 3+0 just because it is called bullet.
If you see "d6" and your eyes go right to it, but you can't get your mouse over it (it goes to the squares around it and you click the wrong square a few times) then ok, it might have something to do with your bullet rating.
As for your bullet ratings being so far off... 100 points difference from your blitz? That seems completely reasonable.
shell_knight wrote:
As for your bullet ratings being so far off... 100 points difference from your blitz? That seems completely reasonable.
I don't care about ratings ( they are not comparable ). My percentiles are very different, this is the measure I take seriously.
All of my percentiles are 0%.
k-scope wrote:
what is the purpose of this test??
For me this test proves that there are skills useful in chess that are unrelated to the undestanding of chess. I'm very poor at this test, but if I'm given reasonable time, I can play reasonable chess. However my bullet is just terrible.
Because this test requires no understanding of chess, it measures a skill useful at fast time controls independent of chess undertanding.
29's my best as white, 20 as black.
watcha wrote:
k-scope wrote:
what is the purpose of this test??
For me this test proves that there are skills useful in chess that are unrelated to the undestanding of chess. I'm very poor at this test, but if I'm given reasonable time, I can play reasonable chess. However my bullet is just terrible.
Because this test requires no understanding of chess, it measures a skill useful at fast time controls independent of chess undertanding.
It helps to follow games in books.
Did it take some time to realize who this person is?
The brain has problems recognizing situations in which the picture is upside down, so it is logical that results with black are relatively worse for everybody ( no matter what their overall skill level is ).
tigerprowl5 wrote:
I think lower rated players would score much lower than GMs due to the fact they don't study from black's perspective as much and rely more on white's openings to decide moves. GMs would prepare more, and I would say from 1700 and up, we would see a incremental rise in performance.
Look, not too many GMs have posted in this thread, so I don't know about the situation with GMs. All posters who have actually disclosed their results in this thread reported worse performance with black, including high rated players:
( harryz is currently rated 1849 blitz )
First 11 with black, switched it and got 18, then 18, then 19