Why does TT deduct points when I solve problem?

inflated:

overinflated:

e4nf3 said: "Many online ratings are inflated. But some 'take the cake'. This would be an example of over inflated."

Alright... I only took the grammar swipe because I thought the original comment was a little uncalled for.  Unless you can deduce that much about me from just a few dozen blitz games, a dozen tactics problems, and a dozen correspondence games.  Maybe you can, I don't know.  I know I'm an amateur.  I've also gone through more than a dozen years to get a higher degree, so I know it doesn't matter how "smart" you are, you'll accomplish nothing without a lot of work.  I'm under no illusions about how little I know or how ignorant I am.  But it just seemed like a caustic remark for no good reason.

Welcome to The Internet :-)  There is nothing normal, regular, abelian, orthogonal, or linear here. Expect mainly pathological cases, discontinuous personalities, singular mindsets, and trivial solutions.

Sometimes "no good reason" is the best reason of all. 

I would like to study under the English Teacher, who I am sure would tell ModularGroupGamma not to misunderestamate efNf3.  

Hey, let's get back to the original question.

ModularGroupGamma is entirely correct.

End of discussion.

Where is STAFF to respond to or correct this glitch?

See, this is the kind of thing that happens when we get back to the original question:  the discussion ends.

ChazR said: "Where is STAFF to respond to or correct this glitch?"

Based on the informal feedback received from others, I get the impression it's not a "glitch", but it was intentionally designed that way.  In that case, there's nothing to fix; the designers just had a different intention (focus on speed vs. accuracy) in mind, and I just have to take that into account when using it.

OK.  I got it.  If it is not broken, don't fix it.  Whay is ModularGroupGamma wasting time about a non-issue?

Hey, it led to that cool "inflated/overinflated" imbroglio.  Quit complaining.

ChazR said: "OK.  I got it.  If it is not broken, don't fix it.  Whay is ModularGroupGamma wasting time about a non-issue?"

I was being a little tongue in cheek.  It was a diplomatic way of saying I realize I have a difference of opinion with the designers about the intentions of how the TT is set up, but I get the impression from others there's little I can do about it (beyond voicing I wish it was different).

Although the emphasis on speed vs. accuracy is a matter of opinion, I do think I have a valid point regarding the "average time" only being taken over successful attempts, namely that it gives an artifical measure of "how long it takes one to figure out the problem" and should have a time penalty for incorrect answers.

I WOULD NOT BE THAT COCERNED WITH POINTS, TACTICS TRAINER IS A VALUABLE TOOL TO ENABLE YOU TO MASTER THE GAME. AS YOU STAY WITH IT YOU WILL GAIN POINTS BUT IN A SHORT TIME YOU WILL ALSO GAIN SKILLS. GOOD LUCK.

Just one last comment, and then I'll let it rest (I hope).  I gave an example of an extreme case above to make a point.  The example was everyone plays a random move after 5 seconds, so the "average time" for a successful attempt is 5 seconds.  This is an extreme case, but just an exaggerated version of the following:

Suppose you are looking at a tactics problem where there are 3 "obvious" starting candidate moves, meaning other moves are clearly wrong.  But the position is complicated, so choosing the correct move would take time to calculate.  If a lot of people are using this as a blitz training tool, or are just deciding they have to make a move quickly, then they might split up evenly about 1/3 each between the 3 "obvious" candidate moves.  So everyone gives a move in 30 seconds, and the "average time" to "find" the correct move is 30 seconds.  But it's clear these people didn't "find" anything, they were practically guessing.  If someone takes the time to actually find the correct move by calculating, they take more time, and get it correct but are penalized for "taking too long".  This is what I mean about it being an "artificial measure".

Of course, maybe my tactical skills are weak and I'm just too slow; the tactics should be found pretty quick.  But the pass rates seem to be low (40-60%) and the general point is valid.

PLAVIN79 said: "I WOULD NOT BE THAT COCERNED WITH POINTS, TACTICS TRAINER IS A VALUABLE TOOL"

That would be true, except for one fact (which I believe is true), namely that your rating determines the rating of tactics you are presented with.  So you cannot move up in rating without focusing on speed at some point.  I agree, it's still valuable, in that your speed will improve regardless if you use it right, but it does prevent you from practicing more difficult tactics, if the rating is determined so much by speed.

It is not just about the best thinker...it is about the fastest thinker.  Bobby was 2700 at speed chess.  I am old and slow and about 1000 at bullet...time matters.

I remember reading someone claiming that a wrong answer adds 5 seconds to your time for every move of the problem.  So if you answer in 10 seconds, a 3-move problem gives you 25-second time.  Can any staff confirm/deny this?

I've noticed many people with high (2000+) TT ratings have pass rates around 60%.  So it seems the TT is "training" people to quickly find 2 or 3 candidate moves and then choose one without further analysis.

Note to staff: TT is one of the major reasons I haven't upgraded.

And to all those who are going to say: "Ignore your rating, just use it and stop whining", as I've said before: 1) your rating affects the problems you are given in the future, and 2) it's terrible pedagogy; the TT rating, while designed to give you appropriate problems, obviously has a "self-competitive" aspect to it; without unusual self-control the user will be compelled to alter their behavior to maximize their rating.  So there should be evidence that increased rating actually correlates to better tactical skills.

MY LAST 4 TT PROBLEMS:

I've just got to say that I often feel time pressured on these rated puzzles, too.

And, yes, it does feel like you've got to play at blitz timing. Take an extra 20 or 30 seconds on some puzzles and even though you got the right frickin' answer...you might just as well have failed.

They ain't gonna change this. And, you can take longer by playing them untimed/unrated.

So...I've just gotten used to it.

What I hate about playing un timed is that it doesn't keep a record of the ones you've done so you can redo your failures later.

I'm currently on a streak of 15 consecutive TT problems answered correctly, during which I've lost points, including 50 points over the last 10 problems.

I must have that "unusual self-control" I was talking about...

I sent an query to staff a couple days ago asking specifically how average times and "points" (between 0 and 1 used for Glicko) are calculated for TT.  No response yet, but we'll see.  The "explanation" page does say that Glicko rating is used (each TT problem is a "game" between you and the problem, so the problem solvers and the problems are all part of the same "pool" of "players").  What is not clear is how average time is determined (there is no formula given, nor do they say who the average is taken over).

Not meaning to flog a dead horse, but more just to state for the record as an example to show staff:

MY LAST 21 TT PROBLEMS:

Average problem rating 1267.  I solved 20 correctly, 1 incorrect (95.2%)  Success rate for problems ranged from 49.9% to 64.6% with average of 56.8%, with the exception of a single outlier with success rate 22.5% (the one I missed, btw... I got the first move but missed the second, took material instead of mate in 1).  Average time per problem was 38 seconds.  My average time per problem was 65 seconds (hardly dawdling!).  Over these 21 problems, my rating rose 3 points, from 1233 to 1236.

According to the rating system, taking another 27 seconds per problem is as bad as answering half the problems wrong.  So, we see where the priorities of the ratings calculations lie.

It's too bad... o/w I really like TT...