The old Tactics Trainer timer debate

I skipped through some search results and obviously a lot of people, like me, are unhappy with the tactics trainer point system. Time usually is too short to really calculate your moves if you'd like to improve your rating at the same time.

I have failed to find a satisfactory answer as to why the system cannot be changed. The only regular answer that makes sense seems to be: "Ignore/turn off the timer, ignore your rating, and eventually you will make progress" (because while you will still not be able to calculate the moves beforehand, you will recognize the patterns and most time guess correctly).

While I can respect that position, it seems pretty crazy, too. Why should you have to ignore a part of the tactics trainer that is meant to encourage and motivate you? Almost any computer game does include a rating of some sort, stats you can improve, levelling up, and so on. Why? Because it's a lot of fun to reach new limits, being able to quantify your achievement in some sort, of course! And as to patterns being the only thing that matters, I beg to differ. Any game will include positions that are new to you and will require you to calculate.

So if anyone could enlighten me as to why the point system cannot or should not be changed, for example in the way I have sketched out in this blog post, please do.

Part of the reason for having a set time limit, i guess, is because of the way the problem rating works. If you solve a problem then your rating goes up, but the problem rating goes down and vice versa. If you removed the timer it would be unfair on those who still had the timer because the problems with the same rating would be harder for them than those people without a timer. As you say it is fun to quantify achievement relative to others, but having an option on time divides the userbase in two.

That said it wouldn't be that hard to implement a two rating system, one for timed and the other not.

I'm not saying you should remove the timer(!).

For my complete suggestion how it should be, read the blog i have linked in my first post. To sum it up, I would never deduct points if you get it right, so if you are slow but solve it, you just get 0 points. If you get it wrong, it's -10 (fast) to -15 (slow).

To me, that would bring balance to an unbalanced system. People who like to calculate all the way through would not get penalized for it, and for everyone else it would stay pretty much the same.

 I have two issues with T.T. The first is when a problem is solved only a 1/4 of the way through. Yes, a person can further calculate on his own to be sure he understands the mate, win of material, etc. I feel every problem should be played out till the end. Some of the problems require just a check and full credit is given for solving the problem without even having to correctly complete the whole problem. This is terrible for one's calculation.

My second issue is their should be a rated tactics trainer with no timer. Call it calculation training. This will provide students a chance to really work on the tactics and calculation without the stress of a clock. Yes, I know you can turn the timer off but regardless the student should still have a rating for this so as to keep track of his progress. Just my two cents. Also, does Chess.com have any plans for updating, reworking, etc. the T.T.?

You don't want the timer removed, you just want your rating to go up.

But why? The tactics ratings purpose only serves to deliver problems that are on your skill level. If you have trouble with the ones at your current level, then how do you think you fair better with harder ones? What you're suggestion is more of a shift. It won't make you any better. If the current system you fundamentally flawed, then no one would be able to rise up their rating.

You also said:

(because while you will still not be able to calculate the moves beforehand, you will recognize the patterns and most time guess correctly).

People that are recognizing patterns are not guessing. That literally doesn't make sense. If you see the pattern, you wouldn't be guessing.

I also don't see why you need the timer to encourage and motivate you. I find that it clues you in as to how easy or difficult a problem is if you can see that it's moving faster or slower. If it moves slow, you have an advantage over me as I turn it off (I find it distracting) and don't know that the puzzle is harder. In a real game, you have no idea as to how easy or hard a puzzle is. Likewise a fast timer will tell you that the obvious move you see first is probably right.

Also chess is just a hobby for most people. If you aren't motivated to get better on your own, then why care about that at all. It's just a game.

>Almost any computer game does include a rating of some sort, stats you can improve, levelling up, and so on.

I find that most modern games only have leveling up, not ratings. Ratings show your skill vs other players and will go up and down. Leveling up usually just shows how long you've played (or how much you payed for) the game. Also the tactic trainer isn't a game. You're not playing against anyone. You're just getting drills to become better for when you do actually play against someone.

It seems that you want the TT to be more like leveling up than a rating system. If you have a timer, you should lose points even if you get it right if it took you a full hour to solve it. Otherwise, why have a timer at all.

>And as to patterns being the only thing that matters, I beg to differ. Any game will include positions that are new to you and will require you to calculate.

I beg to differ on your differing. If you've seen a thousand smothered mates then a variation in position won't throw you off.

I think your real problem is that you're restricted to only 3 problems a day. as such you aren't going to see as many tactics often enough to improve much over time since pattern recognition comes from lots of repetition. You need a blue diamond next to your name for the current system to be truly useful. So either pay for the site or just go find one that is free and gives unlimited tactics. chesstempo? It even gives credit for "good", but not perfect moves. Unfortunately it's interface is ugly as hell.

But if you want an answer, here's one. Zero points for always getting it right would allow anyone to use a chess engine to ensure that if they aren't sure about a problem, they can just cheat and get their ratings moved upwards. While not a true problem in itself, it adversely affects the true rating of the tactics. You may as well take the timer out completely as it isn't required to calculate a rating. Another reason is that your changes are your personal opinion shared by a handful of others, but not enough that anyone really cares. Everyone is going to have their own take as to how the system should be.

Personally I think the timer should be tossed out all together, but that's just me. (I don't understand how anyone thinks that in a learning environment, the pressure of a clock could help any. But then I found an iPhone app that gives unlimited puzzles and no clock, so I use that mainly now.) I also think each move in the puzzle should have a weighted value. There are puzzles that are rated at 1100 with a 3% pass rate. The reason is that the first 5 moves are easy, but the last is at a 2000 level to find. By giving a weight to each move in the puzzle, you gain more points for getting the moves that others missed and puzzles that are over all very hard are pushed up to their proper rating level.

The owner of the site has pretty much made it obvious in posts that as long as the site is gaining members, it must be working fine. Since no one is leaving over these problems, he doesn't make any effort to fix them. It's unlikely you'll see any changes by petitioning for them.

I should also point out that the TT is set up closer to how regular chess ratings work. Your system has a fixed amount of points that are lost or gained. The TT isn't fixed like that. For example if you've never done a puzzle before and get a 100% your rating will go up by hundreds just like if you've never played a game before. It just levels out over time, but never reaches a point where you will always get +15 if you get a 100%. Sometimes you'll get a +13 or +18. Likewise if I get a 0% sometimes it will be -13, or -15.

My point has always been that if it takes you an hour to find a tactic then you don't really "know" it. I'm sure people could do better if they had infinite time but the point of tactics trainer is to create mastery of tactics and not a high score. Some people don't do well under test-taking situations but everyone has to get that sorted out in some way.

My only thought for an alternative would be to turn of the timer for practice and turn it back on for testing. The problem there is that you'll already be at a higher rating by the time you decide to really test yourself. And who knows if those tactics you did have really been retained? 

But if you did puzzles 300 points below your level you'd probably run through them very quickly.

>When you eliminate the timer, you eliminate one of the two meaningful evaluations of comparison with other players. Hence it would seem there is no more point to having a rating at all.

Disagree. Other sites have shown that you don't need a timer for it to work or for players to improve. I can't even imagine how the timer would help if you haven't learn the particular pattern your facing already. The timer puts pressure on you in a drill like fashion, but that's only good if you are already familiar with the pattern.

No where else do you see learning like this as the better way. Imagine in school a teacher telling you that you have 10 minutes to learn the material presented before you, then you take the test. Instead of letting you study at home taking as long as it takes for you to learn it.

I can't disagree with his idea. I just don't see immense value in it. Outside of the emotional aspects of a score loss, you shouldn't be learning better or faster that way. I mean, you do only lose 10 points or so. Can't win them all, get over it. However the next time you run into that pattern, you'll have a better chance of identifying it quickly and will start to make positive points, thus your rating will raise. But with only 3 a day, that's hard to do.

>I don't think the girls will be too turned off by your low rating when you show them your accuracy.

Based on the porono's I've seen, I'd have to disagree. I shall go no further.

It is best to play with the timer hidden, if improving is your main priority (and not earning points).

That's possible on this site, but you need to pay and you don't get these valuable rating "points," when you practice. You can even choose what rating range you want to get problems from.

Thanks a bunch for your answers, I enjoyed reading all of them.

@chessplayer11: you obviously have taken a lot of time, so I'll try not to be too curt.

> You don't want the timer removed, you just want your rating to go up.
I do not want the timer removed, but otherwise you missed it completely. While it's certainly more fun to see your rating go up than down, I'm quite alright with my rating, and I don't need to get harder problems. What I don't like is the situation during the problem. My point system would make trying to solve the problem more fun to me, because there is less clock stress, and I will more often calculate my way through it instead of taking a guess because I think I might have the right solution and guessing is much more attractive because of the point distribution. I will still get a lot of problems wrong, and my rating will not rise considerably until I really get better at seeing the patterns in a short amount of time.

> People that are recognizing patterns are not guessing. That literally doesn't make sense. If you see the pattern, you wouldn't be guessing.
Your logic is seriously flawed if you can’t see this one. There are a lot of patterns coexisting on a chess board. If you have seen one pattern, that does not mean there is not another you have missed. I almost always see a pattern right before I fail the problem.

> Likewise a fast timer will tell you that the obvious move you see first is probably right.
I agree with this, it’s an unfortunate by-product of the timer. But that‘s off topic.

> Also chess is just a hobby for most people. If you aren't motivated to get better on your own, then why care about that at all. It's just a game.
What does that have to do with anything? We were talking about TT, and its point system. Which can be changed to make the game more fun.

> Also the tactic trainer isn't a game. You're not playing against anyone.
... what?

> If you have a timer, you should lose points even if you get it right if it took you a full hour to solve it. Otherwise, why have a timer at all.
Because, very obviously, the timer still determines half of what rating points you get, even with my system.

>> Any game will include positions that are new to you and will require you to calculate.
> I beg to differ on your differing. If you've seen a thousand smothered mates then a variation in position won't throw you off.
Again, what kind of logic is this? You can still recognize a smothered mate in some variations, hence there does not exist a position in a game that is new to you?? Ask some top players, or maybe ask yourself why all top players are still taking a lot of time for some moves.

> your real problem is that you're restricted to only 3 problems a day
That would probably be true if my goal was to really see my rating go up. I think 3 tactics per day is perfect for me, as I do not like to spend too much time with chess. Again, it’s about enjoying those 3 problems more, by having a point system that makes more sense.

> (... about cheating with an engine..) While not a true problem in itself, it adversely affects the true rating of the tactics.
This could almost be a reason. Two things work against that. First, even with a lot of nutcases on this site, I don’t think there are a lot of people that would keep up entering positions into an engine just to cheat their way into a higher TT rating which is not interesting anyone else than themselves. Second, what you write about the true rating of the tactics is only partly correct, because they will get 0 points for the solved problem (because it took them too long), so the rating of the problem is not affected. Also, problem ratings fluctuate a lot anyway, as you will know if you read the comments.

> Another reason is that your changes are your personal opinion shared by a handful of others, but not enough that anyone really cares
Well, that’s a very sad way to look at things. If everyone thought that way, nothing would ever get changed. It takes one mind to have a good idea, one mouth to start to spread it, and then some people different from you, who will not throw in the towel within the first 10 seconds. I care, some others care, I’m trying to get still others to care.

> Your system has a fixed amount of points that are lost or gained. The TT isn't fixed like that. For example if you've never done a puzzle before and get a 100% your rating will go up by hundreds
Unless that is some big difference between members and non-members, that is not correct. I never had more than +-18 (even with 100%). I do not want to change that algorithm (calculating maximum/minimum points). My deviations are just in between.

> Outside of the emotional aspects of a score loss, you shouldn't be learning better or faster that way. I mean, you do only lose 10 points or so.
It’s quite easy why you learn better with my system. If you take more time (because time pressure is less severe) and eventually get the solution by yourself, the chance a lot better you’ll remember how to do it next time. If you have any pedagogical background, this will not be news to you.

@TitanCG:

> My point has always been that if it takes you an hour to find a tactic then you don't really "know" it.
And that’s why, with my system, you will get 0 points when you take an hour, even if you get it right! -10 however is just inappropriate. You get to know it while you calculate your way through it, and to discourage it is wrong.

@owltuna:

> Chess ratings are a measure of how well a chess player performs against other chess players. Agreed? I have to ask, because nowhere in your post do you
ndicate that you understand that basic concept.
That’s fishy. I suggest you read my proposal again and do not talk about ditching the timer altogether.

> Nothing to be ashamed of there; I don't think the girls will be too turned off by your low rating when you show them your accuracy.
Thanks for that expertise.

@shoopi:

I value your opinion and thanks for posting, but please stop telling me to turn off the timer. Not only can non-members not do that, I have also written that already in my original post.

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding here. I did say timer, but actually meant average time. Timer does not matter, the average time though gives a hint, which nullifies the object of maximizing improvement.

>> Any game will include positions that are new to you and will require you to calculate.
> I beg to differ on your differing. If you've seen a thousand smothered mates then a variation in position won't throw you off.
Again, what kind of logic is this? You can still recognize a smothered mate in some variations, hence there does not exist a position in a game that is new to you?? Ask some top players, or maybe ask yourself why all top players are still taking a lot of time for some moves.

Top players do not spend a lot of time to see a smothered mate. Also in actual games, they are not at any given moment being presented with a known tactical situation. They still have to manage their clock and if they have time they will use it to look for better moves than an immediate gain.
To quote chesstempo's help page on this in their FAQ
"I played a move I am sure leads to a winning endgame, but was marked wrong, why did this happen?
Playing moves that don't lead to relatively short term material advantage, but instead require a long and drawn out endgame before material advantage can be achieved can be risky in Chess Tempo tactical problems. The engine may not have been able to see far enough into the future to see the endgame reach a position of material advantage, and hence your move may be given an evaluation below what it deserves. While frustrating, this seems reasonable given that the tactical problems are about finding tactics, not playing for long term endgame wins."

This site is no different. You're tasked to spot common tactical patterns, not strategic moves. Top players look for better moves, not quick obvious wins that might be turned against them later on.

---
> Also chess is just a hobby for most people. If you aren't motivated to get better on your own, then why care about that at all. It's just a game.
What does that have to do with anything? We were talking about TT, and its point system. Which can be changed to make the game more fun.

> Also the tactic trainer isn't a game. You're not playing against anyone.
... what?

>Almost any computer game does include a rating....

It's not a game. It's a learning tool. You're not winning and losing against anyone. You're looking for patterns in a training environment.

---
> People that are recognizing patterns are not guessing. That literally doesn't make sense. If you see the pattern, you wouldn't be guessing.
Your logic is seriously flawed if you can’t see this one. There are a lot of patterns coexisting on a chess board. If you have seen one pattern, that does not mean there is not another you have missed. I almost always see a pattern right before I fail the problem.

So between a mate in 3 on one side of the board, a hanging piece everywhere, and a fork somewhere, you're guessing which one is correct? Finding the best move on a complex board is part of the increased rating, isn't it? The amount of time you're going to find the correct one is about the same as anyone at your level. In fact it's determined by others at your level. And if you don't get it in a quick time, then you're not at that level. Your rating should be knocked down some. You can't tell me it's not fair that people at your rating level are faster than you at spotting these and you shouldn't lose points over that.
----
>Also, problem ratings fluctuate a lot anyway, as you will know if you read the comments.

No they don't. Only new problems will change a lot as they should. Check the dates of the comments. They're not going to jump hundreds of points in a few weeks.
----
> Another reason is that your changes are your personal opinion shared by a handful of others, but not enough that anyone really cares
Well, that’s a very sad way to look at things. If everyone thought that way, nothing would ever get changed.

What? Allow me to reiterate. Your "Personal Opinion." Not the "correct way." Hence, the reason no one wants it changed is because only you seem to think your way is perfect. You don't even care about using the TT for its intended use; to get better at chess. You've shown no code for how your system would work and it's not very clear as to what makes it better, or why so. Other than you just don't like seeing a -10 over a zero, and that'll make you feel better, I got nothing out of your system. I can't even understand how the time pressure is less severe because of this 0 over -10. Just another personal view, not a fact.
It's like you have this great idea, if only everyone else would just think like you do.

>It takes one mind to have a good idea, one mouth to start to spread it, and then some people different from you, who will not throw in the towel within the first 10 seconds. I care, some others care, I’m trying to get still others to care.

Dude, you're not curing cancer. And who are these people that care? The six or so that left responses on that blog?

Let me emphasis by quoting what someone once said, "I do not like to spend too much time with chess."
----
> Your system has a fixed amount of points that are lost or gained. The TT isn't fixed like that. For example if you've never done a puzzle before and get a 100% your rating will go up by hundreds
Unless that is some big difference between members and non-members, that is not correct.

Here. An account that has only 8 attempts. As you can see, it's a larger difference for newer players. You can see for yourself. Just reset your stats or create another account. I assure you the algorithm has always been dynamic like this.

---
> Outside of the emotional aspects of a score loss, you shouldn't be learning better or faster that way. I mean, you do only lose 10 points or so.
It’s quite easy why you learn better with my system. If you take more time (because time pressure is less severe) and eventually get the solution by yourself, the chance a lot better you’ll remember how to do it next time. If you have any pedagogical background, this will not be news to you.

Well, I've already said that the timer should be removed all together as it makes no sense to have any pressure when seeing a pattern for the first time. Paying members on this site are the only ones that can turn it off. But they can also pick their rating range they will get, so the ratings don't really matter for them. I mostly use other apps and sites for this reason.

But you already have an infinite amount of time to solve it. You just don't like seeing negative numbers from some reason. What happens when you play a real game against someone and lose on time, but would have won because your position and number of pieces would have easily beat him? Do you think that ELO algorithm should also be changed?
----
> your real problem is that you're restricted to only 3 problems a day
That would probably be true if my goal was to really see my rating go up. I think 3 tactics per day is perfect for me, as I do not like to spend too much time with chess. Again, it’s about enjoying those 3 problems more, by having a point system that makes more sense.

I don't think you understand the purpose of the TT. If you're not trying to get better at chess and don't care about your rating, then why change a system that means nothing to you?
The rating is used to determine which problems you are given. It's not a video game score.

Basically you say that getting 0 points is more "fun" than -10. Less stress? The purpose of the timer is the stress. How do you figure zero points is going to give you less stress? There's nothing sensible about that. A zero over -10. If it were set up like that to start with when you first joined the site, you would probably complain that one should be getting some points for eventually getting it right at all. To make it more fun.
It's just an opinion; there's no logic to it. In fact you may even be more inclined to guess if you knew you'd get a "zero" score. What's to say you wouldn't?

You also say that your rating wouldn't rise under your system. Maybe not, but mine sure would. I can't imagine how it wouldn't. As it's set up now if I know that too much time has passed that I can't get past the 20%, then I take as long as I want until I get it. With your system, I won't find myself losing more points to counter the zero point loss I now have. The only thing left is that my rating will go up even though I haven't gotten any better. In which case I'll start seeing problems that I'm not familiar with because the entire purpose of TT is repetition. I would have defeated the TT intent.


As far as i can tell, in a nutshell, you just want to see a zero instead of a -10 when you can't solve it quickly.

@chessplayer11: Ok, I started replying to everything you said then gave up on you. If you don't mind my curiosity, are you female? I've learnt during the years that there is a gender specific affinity towards logical versus emotional argumentation, that's why...

Anyway, I suppose we could go on for months and not find much common ground, so I'll restrict myself to my core points (touched in your last three paragraphs) and not write another page-long text.

That getting 0 instead of -10 points for a correctly solved puzzle is putting you under less time stress should be obvious. I mean, really, really obvious. That you should be enticed to guess more in my system makes no sense. I mean no sense at all. Guessing will give you more failed puzzles, and in my system, the difference between failed and correct ones is bigger.

As far as i can tell, in a nutshell, you just want to see a zero instead of a -10 when you can't solve it quickly [but get it correct].

And I thought that's what I said right at the start... ;)

This is stupid people. cailleach, chess.com has hundreds of posts from people complaining about the system and they have done nothing, probably because they think the system is fine (and i agree with them). Maybe we're wrong, maybe we're right but either way it doesn't matter. TT points don't mean much and the system is perfectly usable whether or not it conforms to your opinions on how it should function. If you really really feel strongly about it, contact one of the chess.com staff directly.

What is essentially wrong with the tactics trainer system is that the timer is basically the "average" time spent on that problem by all users who have attempted it.

(Please do correct me if I am wrong but that is my impression, obviously if I am mistaken the following point is moot and should be disregarded).

Essentially you should have the time limit (imo) be the average of people getting it correct. So if you look at a problem for 10 secs and guess (and fail) your solving speed doesn't contribute to making the timer lower.

Take for instance the most difficult tactics on Chess Tempo, the avg time of those might be let's say 25 minutes. But when you look at the solvers that get it correct, they usually spend 2-4 hours on it. Furthermore it becomes clear that the timer is flawed when you notice that the problem has a 10-15% pass rate, in other words most people that attempt look at it for 20 minutes, gets pissed, gives up and then guesses.

Now if Chess Tempos rating system were the same, it would penalize the top solvers there that actually spend hours solving extreamly complex problems simply becuase the vast majority of their user base doesn't have the skill to solve them and therefor guesses. And that is basically how it is on Chess.com, both for lower and higher rated problems.

Personally I have a lot of trouble actually improving my rating on TT on chess.com (partly because I only have 3 problems ;-)). Simply because for training purposes I always attempt to calculate all the way through and even when I calculate fast (in my opinion) I top the score at 50-60% gaining only a few points. To further my point my tactics rating on chess tempo is several hundred points higher than my rating here.

I don't know if I was not being clear or if you just disagree, either ways let me try to be more specific as to why I see this as a problem. Let's take an example.

For instance, problem rated 1200. 50% pass rate, average time 1 min 30 secs. Let's say that the average time of those that solved the problem is 2 mins and the average time of those that failed it is 1 mins.

So new solvers that get it correct (and spend an average of 2 mins), get penalized because the timer says 1,5. What I think is the problem is that the average time is not (in this case) 2 mins, I simply do not believe that the average time spent failing a problem should have anything to do with it's timer.

Not a big deal right? But what if it's a problem like this:

Problem rated 2800. 10% pass rate, timer 15 mins.

Avg. time of solvers that got it correct, 60 mins, avg time of people that failed 10 mins.

In conclusion to pass this problem, you would need to not only have the skills but also on average, to spend 1 hour calculating. Now in this case I think it's a huge problem if you have a timer that says 15 mins.

I like how chesstempo.com does it.  They have a blitz rating and a timeless setting with different recorded ratings.

Of course TT points don't mean much. Of course it's a game, of course I can just stop playing if I don't like it.

Then again, if I can play and enjoy it more by a small change in the system, why shouldn't I put in some effort?

If you want to offer a meaningful contribution, then kindly answer to my question as to why in your opinion, the present system is better than what I propose, and do not just tell me I should not bother. Because that's really for me to decide.

I did contact the staff a few weeks ago. What I had already expected from other posts happened: A message that they will get back to me, then, nothing. Maybe I'll get an answer eventually, but I doubt it.

With my system, time pressure is still there, but it's less severe. Solving it correctly gets a bit more importance versus being fast.

If that is true, you definitely have a valid point. I suppose it would make more sense to take the mean time of only the people that have actually solved it.