I wasn't saying you are a master level player, was using it as an example. The disparities were proportional that I was referring to. To look at it another, using your example of turning a win into a draw or blowing a draw and then losing, remember the key to it in my statement of choosing winning lines and being rewarded for it. If there are 10 winning lines, all with different scores according to an engine, when choosing tactics, we should be rated and rewarded according to our ability, not our ability or inability to match an engines top choice. Top GM's don't even do that everytime and if you happened to be able to do it OTB, or at Chess.com, you would be accussed of cheating. We shouldn't be training ourselves to play like engines. We don't even understand their logic past a certain point, no matter our level of play...
You should really accept the obvious.
Since it's supposed to always be only one correct line in tactics trainer, I don't understand what you are talking about. The correct line match the engines top choice, which is why a computer can check if it is a good puzzle, but that doesn't mean we train ourselves to play like an engine. We just train at solving tactics. To give you an idea of good problems (which isn't true for all problems), below is guidelines for new problems (taken from this forum).
1)Each best move is at least +2.5 better than the next best move
2) The position resulting from each next best move is evaluated by a strong computeras having a value of no greater than +0.3 (up to +1 may be allowed if the main move is very strong.
So at each step the solution move must be the only winning move (otherwise the problem is 'ambiguous'), or only move to prevent a loss (for example perpetual check or stalemate). If a tactic is very strong you may need to remove/add quite a lot of material from the starting position. This is stricter than guidelines issued by chess.com. Please don't use this thread to debate whether higher values should be allowed)
examples allowed :
solution move +2.7, next best move +0.2
solution move 0, next best move -2.6
solution move +0.8, next best move -1.8
solution move +10, next best move +0.8
solution move forced mate, next best move +0.9
Examples not allowed :
solution move forced mate, next best move mate in more moves
solution move forced mate, next best move greater than +1.0
Did some problems on my android. No idea why I got so low rated problems or why I was allowed to do this many tactics at the same day. Hard to maintain a rating with problems rated 1000 points below.
Mar 22, 2013 1:41 AM 0051998 1166 2037 2/2 1:01 0:21 Passed (95% | +1) Mar 22, 2013 1:40 AM 0033508 1244 2036 3/3 1:02 0:59 Passed (81% | +1) Mar 22, 2013 1:39 AM 0029466 1106 2035 4/4 1:49 1:01 Passed (89% | +1) Mar 22, 2013 1:38 AM 0048779 1056 2034 4/4 0:52 0:40 Passed (85% | +1) Mar 22, 2013 1:36 AM 0000793 1187 2033 0/3 1:47 1:12 Failed (0% | -37) Mar 22, 2013 1:35 AM 0052316 1124 2070 3/3 1:16 0:15 Passed (100% | +1) Mar 22, 2013 1:35 AM 0033571 1123 2069 3/3 1:57 1:21 Passed (86% | +1) Mar 22, 2013 1:33 AM 0027811 965 2068 2/2 1:12 0:59 Passed (84% | +1) Mar 22, 2013 1:32 AM 0000746 1057 2067 1/1 0:40 0:10 Passed (98% | +1) Mar 22, 2013 1:32 AM 0000905 980 2066 3/3 1:09 0:45 Passed (87% | +1) Mar 22, 2013 1:31 AM 0000766 824 2065 2/2 1:14 0:23 Passed (96% | +1)I am not sure why you failed the one problem that is nearly 1000 points below your rating. It could have been a touch screen issue. Phones suck for that. I won't even try the TT on my phone because of failing, due to it.
I often feel that the system for which they are established in difficulty by rating is severly flawed.
If you failed it because, you simply had a different and most likely, completely winning idea, that was .001 of a point below the computer's assessment, especially, if it was a 7 move puzzle, you shouldn't get dinged for it in my opinion, to begin with. I get frustrated when I see 2 move puzzles that I can solve in 3 tries that are rated 2000+, but 5 to 7 move puzzles at my rating range, that take 5 to 10 tries. That is pretty good evidence to suggest that we get dinged for choosing lines that are winning when we shouldn't and that the system for predetermining difficulty is flawed.
I propose a system that rewards you according to your true ability, as opposed to how often you can match a specific engine's top choice for a move. My goal isn't match Houdini move for move. The last time I checked, that gets you banned. I should instead be rewarded for chosing winning lines. That is the goal of any chess player, at any level.
You don't need to speculate too much why I failed a puzzle. It was a good puzzle and I simply don't manage to solve all problems rated that low. I'm not that consistent at solving lower rated puzzles. I just couldn't see a knight fork for some reason.
If that is the case, it lends even more creedance to what I am saying. Master level players shouldn't make mistakes that that sub 1200 players make...I realize even GM's make silly mistakes from time to time. If a puzzle is really worthy of that rating in my opinion, you don't make that mistake.
Having said all of this, considering I am not a computer programmer, I am not sure how to incorporate a preattempted rating system for puzzles, or a way to integrate a system for rewarding a player for choosing winning lines. This could be done on a basis of points rewarded for how close to the best and all of the way down to a drawing line, for which you would be rewarded nothing. When you play losing moves, that is when you should get dinged. Also, the system should be set up so that you can chose it to reward or penalize according to the type of chess you play and the difficulty of the problem. Three out of the 10 people who try a puzzle might have gotten lucky and picked the right move quickly, driving the average solved time down, too low, while 7 people might have failed it. My skill shouldn't be required to keep pace with the luck of others.
Well, having a tactics rating of 2000+ doesn't makes me a master level player.
There are some bad problems with several winning lines, but those are just bad problems that should be removed/changed (since alternative winning lines currently isn't an option). It shouldn't matter how close you are from solving a puzzle, a failed puzzle is a failed puzzle. I don't care weather you turn a win into a draw or a win into a loss, both should result in a failed puzzle.
I wasn't saying you are a master level player, was using it as an example. The disparities were proportional that I was referring to. To look at it another, using your example of turning a win into a draw or blowing a draw and then losing, remember the key to it in my statement of choosing winning lines and being rewarded for it. If there are 10 winning lines, all with different scores according to an engine, when choosing tactics, we should be rated and rewarded according to our ability, not our ability or inability to match an engines top choice. Top GM's don't even do that everytime and if you happened to be able to do it OTB, or at Chess.com, you would be accussed of cheating. We shouldn't be training ourselves to play like engines. We don't even understand their logic past a certain point, no matter our level of play...
You should really accept the obvious.