You're crap at tactics?
Why is my tactics rating so low?
Sort:
The TT on chess.com measures pattern recognition. That's why we have a timer. You may well be very good at figuring out tactics during games but don't do well at TT because you don't have your patterns down cold. You could also suffer from some kind of performance anxiety because of the clock. Other sites give options for how important you want the timer to be. You can always go to an unrated mode here. There have been some who just do their training at other sites because they detest the clock here so much. I curse a blue streak myself when I get the correct answer and lose points because I took a few seconds too long.
My tactics rating is higher than my standard rating and online chess rating.
baddogno wrote:
The TT on chess.com measures pattern recognition. That's why we have a timer. You may well be very good at figuring out tactics during games but don't do well at TT because you don't have your patterns down cold. You could also suffer from some kind of performance anxiety because of the clock. Other sites give options for how important you want the timer to be. You can always go to an unrated mode here. There have been some who just do their training at other sites because they detest the clock here so much. I curse a blue streak myself when I get the correct answer and lose points because I took a few seconds too long.
Yeah it took me a while to figure it out too. I've also been surprised to get points even though I got the wrong answer.
Some examples give partial credit when there is a long combination involved, and so they'll reward a small amount of points for getting it mostly right. Also, some solutions should be more apparent than others, and so you are deducted more points for getting those wrong. It calculates points by difficulty, accuracy, and timeliness. I should stress that the timer is there to simulate in-game time pressure. We all can probably find a greater percentage of the answers to problems if given infinite amount of time, but let's face it, actual games don't give us that luxury.
As a lowbie myself, I don't concern myself with the difference between live rating and TT rating, because honestly they both suck. My tactics rating is about 100 pts higher. Should I interpret this as my tactics is solid, or that my tactics don't suck as much? It all sucks, lol
There's a high probability that although you believe yourself good at tactics, that given your current level, there is much improvement left for every statistical category, including tactics. Don't get too wrapped up about a meaningless rating until both are high enough to actually tell you something other than we aren't good at chess.
samir_naganaworkhere wrote:
Some examples give partial credit when there is a long combination involved, and so they'll reward a small amount of points for getting it mostly right. Also, some solutions should be more apparent than others, and so you are deducted more points for getting those wrong. It calculates points by difficulty, accuracy, and timeliness. I should stress that the timer is there to simulate in-game time pressure. We all can probably find a greater percentage of the answers to problems if given infinite amount of time, but let's face it, actual games don't give us that luxury.
As a lowbie myself, I don't concern myself with the difference between live rating and TT rating, because honestly they both suck. My tactics rating is about 100 pts higher. Should I interpret this as my tactics is solid, or that my tactics don't suck as much? It all sucks, lol
There's a high probability that although you believe yourself good at tactics, that given your current level, there is much improvement left for every statistical category, including tactics. Don't get too wrapped up about a meaningless rating until both are high enough to actually tell you something other than we aren't good at chess.
I used "good" as a relative term. I believe I am better at tactics than I am at positional play or endgame play, yet because my tactics rating is so much lower than my live standard rating, that doesn't seem to be the case. My live standard rating is pretty close to yours, yet my tactics rating is 250 points lower than yours. So how am I almost as good as you? I suppose my positional play might be better than I give myself credit for, but I still feel that I suck at positional play. I suppose that I might make less blunders than you, but I feel like I make a lot of blunders. So I am confused at this disparity between my ratings, especially when most people I have seen have higher tactics ratings than their online or live standard ratings. Which was the reason for my original post.
So my tactics rating is 1036, which is over 150 points lower than my live standard rating. This is very odd, especially because I feel that during games, tactical play is my strong suit while positonal play is my weakness. I don't know, then, why my tactics rating would be as low as it is. Any possible explanations?