start a new thread please
Puzzles needed for tactics trainer
Sort:
nameno1had wrote:
Spieler999 wrote:
nameno1had wrote:
katonas wrote:
nameno1had, the rules for this thread are written in the first post. They include the lines :
'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'
I'll admit, I didn't look specifically at that, but why is that considered too ambiguous ? Once again I have to ask the question, aren't tactics trainer puzzles supposed to prepare you for real game situations ? Shouldn't that number for the next best move be consider too close for those who are really adept at tactics already? Afterall, I am trying to submit a puzzle to stump a 3000 rated tactics trainer user, not give a false rating to someone to puff their chest out in pride, or confuse a 1400 player with whether it is a potential mate or winning an exchange ...
I really think that this needs more carefully weighed, for guidelines in choosing puzzles.
looking at your discussion, it seems to me that you did not get the main problem in tactics trainer: there are no alternate solutions which means that you either make the only "solution move" of fail the problem.
this means if you really allow ambiguous problems, people will be punished even though they play a perfectly winnng move. of course you should be always looking for the very best move in a real game but there are a lot situations where you just cannot afford to, especially when you are running out of time as tactics trainer imitates. if you have, say 30 seconds on the clock, and see a simple mate in 5, why invest your remaining time to look for a complicated mate in 4 which you do not even know if it exists? or even if you leave out the time, maybe you get in a situation where you can choose to go for a clearly winning pawn endgame which you feel confident to win, or a complicated mating sequence in which you are afraid of having missed something? real game results clearly prefer the former option but tactics trainer would punish it.
unfortunately there are currently a lot of ambiguous problems in tactics trainer and the report button does not work, but the goal has to be to remove the ambiguities (or make tactics trainer allow multiple solutions which is unlikely to happen), and the first step is definitely to not add more ambiguous problems.
NOW END OF THE DISCUSSION, or this thread will get even more spammed ...
You are misinformed on the type of ambuigity that was being referred to...apparently if there is a clear mate with no alternate, if the next best move is within 1 pawn of value, it is too close according to chess.com.
Please, stop the arguing.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/for-all-your-arguing-needs
May we submit positions from chess960 games here ?
A defensive one :
From game http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=58482990, move 16.
After black captures bishop with Qxb5, white's best line is: 1. Qd5 Nf3+ 2. Qxf3. Black has other options but he'll loose the knight anyway.
Thankyou everyone for being so patient. I hope to spend 4-5hours on Tue + Thur catching up.
Chess960 positions are ok if no-one would be able to tell it came from a chess960 game, and the position could easily arise during a normal game.
I(black) incorectly played Nc3 in this otb game missing white's reply.
Fortunately, my opponent missed it too... A good defensive puzzle
From game http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=58422980, move 9.
Black moves dxe5??, white can then sac the bishop to remove the king as the queen's only defender:
1. Bxf7+ Kxf7 2. Qxd8
Here's a nice tactic from a 1-minute game (http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=363565972); I added a rook on b8 to make the move I played the only one that lead to an advantage. Of course Qxg5 is a bad reply by Black but I think it is the most instructive one as it is clear that if he does anything else white has simply won a knight.
page28 submissions
xdimkx, I like defensive puzzles but unfortunately the puzzle could only be one move long as 21.Nc7 (+0.38) is only slightly stronger than the next best move 21.Nc3=.
bobes, unfortunately the puzzle is ambiguous with many alternative ways win.
iixxPROxxii, unfortunately the puzzle is too straightforward.
Thankyou TheIronDuke, 164th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=266387 (white bishop removed to remove ambiguity)
Thankyou DaBigOne, for a stunning 165th problem http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=219529
Thankyou iused, for letting me know the problem was ambiguous. Thankyou also to iixxPROxxii. Starting later allows the 166th problem http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=286817
nameno1had, unfortunately it is only 1 move long.
katonas wrote:
page28 submissions
xdimkx, I like defensive puzzles but unfortunately the puzzle could only be one move long as 21.Nc7 (+0.38) is only slightly stronger than the next best move 21.Nc3=.
bobes, unfortunately the puzzle is ambiguous with many alternative ways win.
iixxPROxxii, unfortunately the puzzle is too straightforward.
Thankyou TheIronDuke, 164th puzzle http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=266387 (white bishop removed to remove ambiguity)
Thankyou DaBigOne, for a stunning 165th problem http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=219529
Thankyou iused, for letting me know the problem was ambiguous. Thankyou also to iixxPROxxii. Starting later allows the 166th problem http://www.chess.com/tactics/server?id=286817
nameno1had, unfortunately it is only 1 move long.
Is it incorrect to make it two moves long, if my opponent had to blunder in order for that position to arise ?
I have noticed other's complaints about puzzles like that...
Do you have any suggestions for how it could be made two moves?
I have a funny puzzle here but it is quite useful:
nameno1had, the rules for this thread are written in the first post. They include the lines :
'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'
I'll admit, I didn't look specifically at that, but why is that considered too ambiguous ? Once again I have to ask the question, aren't tactics trainer puzzles supposed to prepare you for real game situations ? Shouldn't that number for the next best move be consider too close for those who are really adept at tactics already? Afterall, I am trying to submit a puzzle to stump a 3000 rated tactics trainer user, not give a false rating to someone to puff their chest out in pride, or confuse a 1400 player with whether it is a potential mate or winning an exchange ...
I really think that this needs more carefully weighed, for guidelines in choosing puzzles.
looking at your discussion, it seems to me that you did not get the main problem in tactics trainer: there are no alternate solutions which means that you either make the only "solution move" of fail the problem.
this means if you really allow ambiguous problems, people will be punished even though they play a perfectly winnng move. of course you should be always looking for the very best move in a real game but there are a lot situations where you just cannot afford to, especially when you are running out of time as tactics trainer imitates. if you have, say 30 seconds on the clock, and see a simple mate in 5, why invest your remaining time to look for a complicated mate in 4 which you do not even know if it exists? or even if you leave out the time, maybe you get in a situation where you can choose to go for a clearly winning pawn endgame which you feel confident to win, or a complicated mating sequence in which you are afraid of having missed something? real game results clearly prefer the former option but tactics trainer would punish it.
unfortunately there are currently a lot of ambiguous problems in tactics trainer and the report button does not work, but the goal has to be to remove the ambiguities (or make tactics trainer allow multiple solutions which is unlikely to happen), and the first step is definitely to not add more ambiguous problems.
NOW END OF THE DISCUSSION, or this thread will get even more spammed ...
You are misinformed on the type of ambuigity that was being referred to...apparently if there is a clear mate with no alternate, if the next best move is within 1 pawn of value, it is too close according to chess.com.