The frustration of the Training Puzzles

lfPatriotGames
BillyDoubleU wrote:

It’s worse when you think it’s trickier than it is and you actually knew the right move but thought it was too obvious. So instead you play the wrong move.

Then you play the moves that were obvious and they were right...

I’ve been fluctuating between 1850 and 1915 for a week...

I have found that they are usually trickier than you think. By playing the obvious move, I get more wrong than right. It's usually not because my choice wasn't right, it's because the correct choice is righter. I think it all evens out. Sometimes the answer is really easy, and sometimes it would take me 30 minutes to figure it out. If I cant figure it out in a few minutes I just guess (or play the obvious move). 

darwinwasright

these chess positions are not training for a novice player, there needs to be an organization to the method of learning and timed blitz randomized puzzles geared toward your own rating isnt the structure you need unless the goal is blitz. the puzzle features here is a way of adding marketing value to the site not an actual training feature

btickler

Just do unrated and stop worrying about a rating that does not actually correlate directly to OTB chess ratings anyway.  The problem is that you are competing against a ton of other players obsessed with this meaningless rating, so they keep doing the tactics over and over (many do a ton of them on secondary accounts first, and only then on their main account to keep their rating pristine).  En masse, this dynamic drives the "average" solves time down and down until they hit a specific threshold.  That threshold is "what is the fastest that players can make a good guess, but not spend more seconds deciding if it is absolutely correct, on this tactic?".  So, your average casual chess player who normally spends a perfectly reasonable amount of time pondering a tactic gets pressured to make moves like a bullet player instead.  You learn to play "best guess" chess.

It's a pointless waste of time for everyone involved, and actually bad for your chess game at the extreme end, because you will learn to make a snap judgment when you are 80% - 90% sure to get a problem done in 20 seconds, when you could have been 100% sure at 30 seconds, but you aren't willing to put the time in.  Eventually you may find that your ability to actually reach that "100% sure" level of calculation when you really need to in a real chess game suffers as a result.  

BillyDoubleU

https://www.chess.com/puzzles/problem/688020

 

Like the puzzle above. The actual forcing move to force the outcome without a doubt is wrong. Yet the other "forcing" move is correct even though black doesn't have to play it that way.

 

I lost 13 points because the puzzle responded to "hope" chess and not actual force.

 

Those smarter than me are welcome to tell me why black would hand white a free Queen...

PelatoPawnStar
btickler wrote:

It's a pointless waste of time for everyone involved, and actually bad for your chess game at the extreme end, because you will learn to make a snap judgment when you are 80% - 90% sure to get a problem done in 20 seconds, when you could have been 100% sure at 30 seconds, but you aren't willing to put the time in.

 

Yeah, not sure I agree ... my positional identification has already improved IMO as a result of seeing these puzzles ... if you are aware that the time is less important than getting the puzzle right, how can there be a negative impact ?

KevinBorg
chryogen wrote:
btickler wrote:

It's a pointless waste of time for everyone involved, and actually bad for your chess game at the extreme end, because you will learn to make a snap judgment when you are 80% - 90% sure to get a problem done in 20 seconds, when you could have been 100% sure at 30 seconds, but you aren't willing to put the time in.

 

Yeah, not sure I agree ... my positional identification has already improved IMO as a result of seeing these puzzles ... if you are aware that the time is less important than getting the puzzle right, how can there be a negative impact ?

Hi chryogem I have to agree with you, I try and concentrate on accuracy rather try to be a speed demon, not that I could any way...lol But it's horse for courses i suppose.
cheers Kev

 

btickler
chryogen wrote:
btickler wrote:

It's a pointless waste of time for everyone involved, and actually bad for your chess game at the extreme end, because you will learn to make a snap judgment when you are 80% - 90% sure to get a problem done in 20 seconds, when you could have been 100% sure at 30 seconds, but you aren't willing to put the time in.

 

Yeah, not sure I agree ... my positional identification has already improved IMO as a result of seeing these puzzles ... if you are aware that the time is less important than getting the puzzle right, how can there be a negative impact ?

So then, you don't need the timed, rated puzzles at all wink.png.  If you discard that aspect, you get all the benefits with no downsides.  All you lose is the ability to measure yourself against others on a number that doesn't mean anything.  If OTB/online chess ratings are important, that's fine.  There's a distinction between "real" ELO-pool ratings vs. arbitrary manufactured ratings that pretend like they go on the same scale.  

It also comes down to what kind of chess you want to play.  Are you trying to play objectively better chess, trying to approach the unattainable perfect "best play", or are you just trying to beat lots of run-of-the-mill players as fast as you can...