FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
PLEASE STOP giving negative scores if we get the correct answer. Please realize some of us are not interested in blitz games, but in tactical solutions. If we are too slow for you, then at least make a zero score, NOT -5 or -500 points if we are too slow.
The purpose of the timer is to simulate a real life game situation which is fair. I've found losing points frustrating too. But I learned to stop caring about the rating and now I just focus on solving the puzzles.
cdowis75 is right on....it's ridiculous to get the right answer and get (-) points. There should be a counter showing how many seconds - total - before the correct answer is worth zero....but never ever (-)........thank you OP !
How is a time of 30 seconds a "real life game situation"? I assume that you are aware that in standard chess we have 30 minutes or more for a game, so it is not unrealistic to give a couple of minutes to calculate a tactic.
This is only useful for those who play blitz chess. What about us "real life" players who play longer times? I note that you are personally very active in these short time games, so your view of a normal game may be skewed.
That's nice for you, but I want to keep score, to track my improvement in solving tactical situations. When I turn off the rating, I have no real way of knowing how much I am improving over time because tactics is also important for standard games, not just blitz.
One of the staff members posted a few months ago that V3 would eliminate negative scores for correct answers. We'll see...
Nothing wrong with minus score on lower-than-average solving time.
Any rating compares you with other people. If someone solves tactics faster, he does better in tactics.
Solving simple tactics quickly is key to solving more complex tactics, at all. This is because more complex tactics often include a number of these simpler tactics, which would then need to be solved quickly and accurately in order to just hang on during a chess game of any time control, against tough opposition.
I suppose that TT scoring should stay the way it is.
If it should be corrected it's the other way: nowadays, you can't lose points on a problem if you score 50% or better, and you can't gain points if you score 49% or worse, no matter your rating or the problem's. I suggest that THIS quirk be eliminated.
I have to agree with cdowis and the others who think that negative scores for correct answers do not make sense. Granted, the better the player, the faster he is likely to find the solution, but serious chess is not played that way. Assuming there is no time pressure, any decent player who thinks he has a winning combination will double- and triple-check his analysis to make sure he hasn't overlooked something horrendous. However, you can't spend a lot of time double-checking your analysis in Tactics Trainer - gotta make those moves fast if you want to get that rating up.
I also think that negative scores for correct answers can be discouraging to students. I tell my students that, when they think they have a forced checkmate, make extra sure it's really there. The game is over when they make the checkmate move, so this is the perfect moment to use some extra time. In Tactics Trainer, however, if they are doing what I say and double-checking their work, they only end up losing rating points.
The quicker players double-check faster too. The slower player will never be sure of the correctness of their calculations if a combination is a bit more complex, as that combination will simply contain too many of these 'simple' factors that they are too slow at.
The solution isn't to try to cut on checking and calculation - as this will create wrong answers and lower the rating even further.
Just do the problem, calculate as you would in a game, make sure you got it right, and don't worry about the rating - it just reflects your ACTUAL level. You will get better, faster and more efficient in your thought process, the rating will naturally RISE.
- - - - - -
Rating is there only to compare you to other solvers in the present moment. There's nothing wrong with it going down on taking more time in solving problems
- - - - - - -
The clock is part of the game in ANY time control - even correspondence. The ability to make the simpler calculations speedily and accurately EVERY TIME is a big part of what creates the difference in class between players. It monitors what level of combos you'll be able to figure out AT ALL, at ANY time control.
Most importantly you shouldn't get partial credit for partial solves. Should be no credit.
About this I'm less sure...
also IRL sometimes the opponent does resign before you complete your combination, even if you didn't see what that actual win was. Then you go - "why the resignation, brother?"
But also you can play the first two moves then hang mate and they become irrelevant.
Well, in chesstempo they do exactly what you suggest...
I suppose that in case they copy this feature to CC, they might as well allow alternative winning lines (by telling you, as they do at chesstempo, that your move was good, but that you still need to look for the very best move in the position)