chesstempo.com allow you more time for solving problems, maybe you should try that.
Tactics Trainer Rating System
Sort:
Jun 7, 2012
0
#3
A nice way to correct for this is to allow the user one "locked in" answer and one "final" answer. They say to themselves "RxP looks good" and lock it in. Then they check the answer. If they like it, they submit a final answer and get a lot of points. If they don't like it, they can choose a second move that gets less points. If they submit the wrong final answer, they lose a lot of points.
You have to limit to one lock-in per puzzle so that players can't just randomly guess a move in the first second, find it doesn't work, and lock in a second move later.
Jun 8, 2012
0
#4
The TT uses the time that other people take to solve each problem, so if you're slower, say, than 80% of people who do the problem, you'll have a problem with time in a real game.
Jun 8, 2012
0
#5
brusselsshrek wrote:
The TT uses the time that other people take to solve each problem, so if you're slower, say, than 80% of people who do the problem, you'll have a problem with time in a real game.
No.
1. The positions in the TT almost always involve a position with a decisive win. Unless you're playing blitz, taking 60 seconds longer than average at such a key time in the game is not going to make any difference in your win rate in a real game at all. This is true even if there are a few positions like this during the course of a game.
2. The "average time" in the TT is overly deflated due to players' taking less time than they normally would OTB due to concerns about the time affecting their rating.
The time taken should be less of a factor in the TT rating adjustment algorithm.
mark100net wrote:
brusselsshrek wrote:
The TT uses the time that other people take to solve each problem, so if you're slower, say, than 80% of people who do the problem, you'll have a problem with time in a real game.
No.
1. The positions in the TT almost always involve a position with a decisive win. Unless you're playing blitz, taking 60 seconds longer than average at such a key time in the game is not going to make any difference in your win rate in a real game at all. This is true even if there are a few positions like this during the course of a game.
2. The "average time" in the TT is overly deflated due to players' taking less time than they normally would OTB due to concerns about the time affecting their rating.
The time taken should be less of a factor in the TT rating adjustment algorithm.
Quoted for truth. IMO the TT here is really rather for Blitz players. It's still fun, though, and that's why I keep clicking it ...
Jun 8, 2012
0
#7
mark100net wrote:
2. The "average time" in the TT is overly deflated due to players' taking less time than they normally would OTB due to concerns about the time affecting their rating.
This feels like an accurate appraisal of the situation.
brusselsshrek wrote:
The TT uses the time that other people take to solve each problem, so if you're slower, say, than 80% of people who do the problem, you'll have a problem with time in a real game.
This is only true of blitz games. In a serious OTB tournament, you have about 2 hours to play your side of the game. Every time I have competed this has felt like an ocean of time. It is a skill to use lots of time effectively. In a critical situation (like many TT problems) you can and should use 5-20 minutes to completely explore the outcome. Guessing, which is encouraged by TT average time scoring system, loses games. If you are trained to guess well, you lose to people who are trained to calculate well. I think it would be nice if TT scoring encouraged you to calculate well instead of guess well.
Jun 8, 2012
0
#9
CBurress wrote:
brusselsshrek wrote:
The TT uses the time that other people take to solve each problem, so if you're slower, say, than 80% of people who do the problem, you'll have a problem with time in a real game.
This is only true of blitz games. In a serious OTB tournament, you have about 2 hours to play your side of the game. Every time I have competed this has felt like an ocean of time. It is a skill to use lots of time effectively. In a critical situation (like many TT problems) you can and should use 5-20 minutes to completely explore the outcome. Guessing, which is encouraged by TT average time scoring system, loses games. If you are trained to guess well, you lose to people who are trained to calculate well. I think it would be nice if TT scoring encouraged you to calculate well instead of guess well.
This is well put.
i started with a rating of 1010 and solved the next problem. it said "problem solved" and gave me a new rating of 1003. how does this work?
Nov 13, 2012
0
#11
I don't know how the rating is exactly calculated, but the emphasis clearly is on speed rather than accuracy.
It's much better for your tactics trainer rating to have a score of about only 50% and find the answers quickly, than getting a higher percentage at a slower rate.
(Of course 50% errors on tactics in long time control games won't be optimal though...)
I think the ratings system of TT encourages bad analytical habits. The rewards for a super quick right answer cancel out a wrong answer. Yet taking 20-60 seconds to check all the lines to what you think is the correct answer can net you a ratings penalty. In practice, I have noticed it takes 3-15 thorough right answers to equal one wrong answer. I am not saying this is a mathematically simple issue where playing fast and stupid is the optimal path, but there is a conditioning effect of the rating system to play intuitive answers without checking, because time spent checking tends to hurt your rating in the long run. If you think a move looks good (which a decent player gets a hang of in TT), playing it immediately as rule tends to cause your rating to go up, while checking it thoroughly can result in dreaded red minuses.
I think rewarding super speed less and punishing slow answers less would make TT a more useful tool. Green pluses and red minuses have conditioning effects, so I think the system should condition players to not be afraid to think things through.