e4nf3 said: "High ratings on the other stuff but very low on the tactical? To me, I smell some bull dung. I have no doubt that that is one of the criteria for exposing the flimflammers"
One of the criteria. I think it would be unwise for them to use that as the only criterion. If the moves on correspondence games didn't send up red flags otherwise, and they had a high percentage rate on TT, I don't think that would be sufficient evidence.
ChazR said: "why do any of us care about your personal problems?"
I wasn't aware that anyone did.
But to address your point. Okay, I cop to it: I'm a very competitive person when it comes to things I set my mind to, and the TT ratings thing did get to me personally and tick me off a bit. But that doesn't mean it's not a relevant issue to discuss, or something that others might be interested in talking about.
And it's definitely not a "personal problem". The fact that I might have to buy a new catalytic converter for my car that I can't afford, the fact that my daughter learned how to say "No!" and throw her food on the floor, the fact that I might not have a job and health insurance for my family next semester because bankers robbed the country, the state is broke, and the right is waging a war on teachers, not to mention a few other things I don't even feel comfortable describing anonymously... these are my "personal problems", not TT.
More personal problems! More personal problems! 
e4nf3 said: "High ratings on the other stuff but very low on the tactical? To me, I smell some bull dung. I have no doubt that that is one of the criteria for exposing the flimflammers"
One of the criteria. I think it would be unwise for them to use that as the only criterion. If the moves on correspondence games didn't send up red flags otherwise, and they had a high percentage rate on TT, I don't think that would be sufficient evidence.
I never suggested that it should be the only criteria. Just one marker.
That aside, your TT vs. C....hmmmm... A jaded eye is looking at you.
No wonder thou doth protest.
If I want to see how good someone is, I look at there tactical training rating.
Still, there was that Tactics Champ who had a 3500 rating...whose other ratings (and games) weren't any too titanically impressive.
I didn't realize one could get to 3500 (unless you are just being rhetorical); maybe 3,000 would be the ceiling (so I would have "guessed).
That aside (second time I've used that term in 15 minutes and don't think I ever have in a lifetime, prior)...
Could he be an exception to the rule? When chess is supposed to be 95% tactics (which, BTW, I've never believed)...how could he not excel?
However...yes...that aside...
As I've written in a prior posting above, if someone were to excel at tactics but knows nothing of strategy/positioning to set up the tactics...then kaput in real play. Also, if they spent so much time on tactical puzzles but don't know opening lines or end game calculations...kaput, also.
Here is something from golf. I got so I spent a lot of time practicing midgame stuff...pitching and chipping...so that my driving shots were kaput. Took me a while to realize that I can't just focus too much on one part of the game of golf...need to work on all parts. Same thing with chess...that's what I think. Yah? (We say that in Greenland).
Well, the implication seems to be that he was indeed able to cheat in some way (either by comp aid or by doing them all so many times that he got the positions memorized).
I see your point.
The cheating at it...clever minds devise all sorts of ingenious ways. However, the clock is very tight. I suspect this would be a very low probability. Yes...not impossible.
As far as pattern recognition from repitition...that I would think to be more likely.
I had gotten to about 1800 on the earlier puzzles. Now I am struggling to break 1600. I know I'll get back up there. And, I know the reason is pattern recognition.
I really don't like that...would rather calculate...but I know it is true.
Another thought...people used to talk about photographic memories. Bobby sure had it. I don't. But maybe this 3500 guy did.
Too, I see 3,500 at tactical puzzles as impossible for even the best players whoever lived. That is, unless, they worked at the particular puzzles. I think that the Devil devised some of them.
e4nf3 said: "That aside, your TT vs. C....hmmmm... A jaded eye is looking at you."
Yeah, passed 43 of the last 45... I really suck! In any case, I'm sure I'll gain a bit of speed and overcome the ratings bias in time.
And I don't really care what anyone else suspects, unless it's staff.
I've never seen the staff address the pedagogy behind the "time penalty" in TT. Maybe they have, but I've never seen it.
I suspect that at base it is simply a means to stop or limit cheating on TT.
Amy
I have >2100 online rating, but didn't manage to get over 1755 tt rating yet on more than 1700 tries. I must be cheating. Please someone ban me.
Well, this is refreshing. At last somebody finally comes out and admits it.
A man must do what a man must do. I still have a 79,5% passing rate.
e4nf3 said: "That aside, your TT vs. C....hmmmm... A jaded eye is looking at you."
Yeah, passed 43 of the last 45... I really suck! In any case, I'm sure I'll gain a bit of speed and overcome the ratings bias in time.
And I don't really care what anyone else suspects, unless it's staff.
Not that any of this matters...
a. If you are 1275, what the heck does it mean that you got the last 43 right out of 45 ??? Where'd you haul butt from...400 or so?
b. And I don't care that you don't care except that you do care about staff caring. So, there!
I have >2100 online rating, but didn't manage to get over 1755 tt rating yet on more than 1700 tries. I must be cheating. Please someone ban me.
The problem with you, bubba, is that you can't use your blinking computerized database or analysis board on the tactical trainer...thus your lowered rating and subsequent angst.
My advice...take a couple of aspirin.
I have >2100 online rating, but didn't manage to get over 1755 tt rating yet on more than 1700 tries. I must be cheating. Please someone ban me.
The problem with you, bubba, is that you can't use your blinking computerized database or analysis board on the tactical trainer...thus your lowered rating and subsequent angst.
My advice...take a couple of aspirin.
Doc Schiwago, using blinking computerized databases is cheating too. And I'm allergic to aspirin - I use 3*400 mg C13H18O2
Nobody said using a database is cheating. It would be in an OTB tournament. But, here it is allowed...as a crutch for low self-esteem, fair-to-middling chess players. Without such a system, there would be much gnashing of the teeth for those who think it is an adjunct to their brilliancy.
Also, this Doc Schiwago...if he lights his hair on fire and jumps off a very high bridge, I suppose you would do so also.
See...if you want to impress people with a logical argument, don't say dumb things.
"computerized" was the key word. Using those databases is cheating. As for the rest ... what do you expect from bubba?
Not trying to put you on tilt, Modular, I apologize. I do think you take yourself a little too seriously, as we all do sometimes...Peace...I just like to joke around...one hundred years from now, it won't make any difference...in fact, it doesn't make any difference five minutes from now...
use the rating system in reverse. How low can you go ?
If I want to see how good someone is, I look at there tactical training rating.
Still, there was that Tactics Champ who had a 3500 rating...whose other ratings (and games) weren't any too titanically impressive.