it looks like most of the high rated TT people here got their rating 6months to a year ago when all the puzzles were massively over rated (or maybe now under rated?)
If you look at some of the comments in TT puzzles from the sad people who have pasted in their score you can see puzzles that were say.. 2100 back then are now sub 1800 - and they'll never be going back by the looks of it.
I think the TT rating is currently a bit under rated .
it looks like most of the high rated TT people here got their rating 6months to a year ago when all the puzzles were massively over rated (or maybe now under rated?)
If you look at some of the comments in TT puzzles from the sad people who have pasted in their score you can see puzzles that were say.. 2100 back then are now sub 1800 - and they'll never be going back by the looks of it.
I think the TT rating is currently a bit under rated .
I just think it isn't the most accurate prediction of tactical ability with the current system (time being so important, partial credit if you get some of the moves).
Yeah the comments from a year or more ago seem to have the puzzles at 200-300 points higher.
Good so that means the puzzles got harder since I started this site. Been a member for only about 3-4 months or so. Currently 1900 TT
My blitz is nearly 1600 and my TT is below 1550 lol I guess I play positionally instead if tactical...
A good TT rating, in my opinion, is 2400 or up. One who is an expert tactics is probably anyone 2600 or up.
I don't get this thread at all. I don't often play online and am rated about 16-1700 on lichess and loose to people that are rated 14-1500 fide but I have a tactics rating of over 2000 easily. Have these points inflated in the last months or whats going on?
Yes, they're way off kelter
Yes, very much so.
I am as of now not even a FIDE-rated player yet (I started playing just before Covid hit) and my TT rating is quickly approaching 2700, whereas my chess.com blitz and rapid ratings are about 1600-1700.
I think the rating system is simply flawed for tactis here.
im 1400 and tt2400
I basically agree with Technical Knockout.
Since I'm not very good, a good puzzle rating would have to be something higher than mine, which is about 3000.
♟♟♟ It’s about winning: Better to look at this holistically rather than pick an arbitrary number for tactics.
Tactics = solving the problems.
Positional play = creating the problems.
Winning = doing both while not blundering.
Checklist stuff: checks, captures, threats. Consistently not messing up — every single move.
👉 If you’re getting into tons of imbalanced but winning positions — study more tactics.
👉 If you’re amazing at tactics but opponents tend to grind you down in the beginning and you never get any counterplay — work on some openings.
👉 If feel like you’re always getting stuck in middlegame play and then burn the clock overthinking stuff — study positional play.
Always remember: it’s often the last bad move that loses, rather than the first brilliant one. So keep track of your blunders and try to avoid repeating them.
Yeah, I have a question with on this subject. My tactics trainer rating is currently 2060 and I consider myself pretty skilled there but after only picking up the game in the last 2 months after not playing for a year plus- my rapid rating is only 1270 currently and only 700 blitz so I'm wondering what I should be studying- how much time I should devote to tactics vs. playing games (longer ones?) vs. positional play (studying master games? Or learning planning with Silman's HTRYC or something else?). I think I'm generally pretty even going into the middlegame but I struggle with plans and require a lot of time to find decent moves, which is one reason my blitz rating is so bad probably.
I'm about 1600 USCF and I consider myself a positional player, yet my tactics rating peaked at well above 2200. I'm maintaining somewhere in the 2000s at the moment I believe.
Granted I am probably underated USCF.
My chess.com online is around 1760, but my blitz rating (1400-1600 at the moment) is horribly innaccurate: I hang pieces some days, play brilliantly others, sometimes lose on time. I can have a 200 point swing in a few days depending on how I feel (usually a 200 point drop.)
Now ur 2200 USCF 
Yeah, I have a question with on this subject. My tactics trainer rating is currently 2060 and I consider myself pretty skilled there but after only picking up the game in the last 2 months after not playing for a year plus- my rapid rating is only 1270 currently and only 700 blitz so I'm wondering what I should be studying- how much time I should devote to tactics vs. playing games (longer ones?) vs. positional play (studying master games? Or learning planning with Silman's HTRYC or something else?). I think I'm generally pretty even going into the middlegame but I struggle with plans and require a lot of time to find decent moves, which is one reason my blitz rating is so bad probably.
I think you've reached a point where spending some time with a coach would make a big difference.
I'm about 1600 USCF and I consider myself a positional player, yet my tactics rating peaked at well above 2200. I'm maintaining somewhere in the 2000s at the moment I believe.
Granted I am probably underated USCF.
My chess.com online is around 1760, but my blitz rating (1400-1600 at the moment) is horribly innaccurate: I hang pieces some days, play brilliantly others, sometimes lose on time. I can have a 200 point swing in a few days depending on how I feel (usually a 200 point drop.)
Yeah I feel the exact same way. On this site I have been rated in the high 1800's and low in the 1400's. I usually am around 1600 most of the time. But I mostly play 1 min games which can be quite unpredictable. My tactics training rating atm is 1860 or so and climbing.
But I am a streaky player. Some days I play very strong and other times not. Sometimes it's game to game. That's why I get accused of using a bot or something, my strength wildly varies.