Why does TT deduct points when I solve problem?

Bubatz...say something really dopey...something petulent...something smug...something that demonstrates ineptitude and turpitude.

Gimme your best shot, Bubba.

I'm actually a bit sorry for making you feel not being taken seriously, but as long as you haven’t played a single game online, it is in fact difficult to not mock your “explanations” of differences between online and tt ratings. “A jaded eye is looking at you” really took the cake.  

Very interesting.

ChazR,

Apology accepted.

That's one thing I don't like about online text communication like this.  With different tone of voice, facial expression, etc., two identical texts can mean totally different things.  Lots of room for misinterpretation.

e4nf3 said: "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?"

Wow, I thought you were following the thread closely.  If you had been, you'd know my rating has been in the mid-1200 range throughout this span of time, so in fact virtually all those problems were rated between 1150 and 1350.

And that was my original point.  One can have very high accuracy (> 90%) with rapid time control response rate (~ 60 seconds/problem) and still go nowhere in TT rating.

Myself, I'd rather take 60 seconds a problem and get 90% correct, than take 30 seconds a problem and get 50% correct.  But, that's just my opinion on what's the best way to improve.

"b. And I don't care that you don't care except that you do care about staff caring. So, there!"

My question to you is this:  If you truly "don't care" whether I care about your suspicions/speculations, (and I'm assuming the same applies to other players), why do you make such a big fuss about this topic?  Obviously you do care what other people think.

I have no intention of getting into a big philosophical discussion with you about the ethics of computers in chess (OTB or CC).  What I do take issue with is when you say you don't care what people think when you clearly do, and when you ascribe psychological motivations for others' personal decisions.  I have my own personal reasons for playing online games here in the fashion I do, which is well within the boundaries set by the site.  I don't need to justify myself to you, and I don't need to be lectured by you.  If you want to argue your case for your own personal opinions about these things, great.  I'm all for open discussion.  But leave your pet theories and insinuations about individual players and their motivations out of it.

yawn

To return to the original question, Tactics Trainer deducts points because it does not like you.

Or perhaps because it made a mistake earlier with someone else and it's trying to even things out.

ANSWER:  It is what it is.

*resurrects*

I too must voice my displeasure in having TT ratings points deducted for getting a problem right, in spite of how long I took on it.

I can understand the motivation behind encouraging members to find solutions quickly, but that shouldn't be at the cost of accurate calculation. This is the inevitable result when you introduce the human element, because naturally, people aren't devoid of ego.

I wouldn't be averse to getting no change in rating points if I took too long on a problem but got the right answer. But I agree with the people that are saying to lose points on getting the correct answer because you took too much time does not promote good learning habits, and is a tarnish on chess.com's marketing of its learning pedagogy.

his rating of 1700 is way overinflated if you see his blitz rating its around 1100 and nowhere near 1700 my blitz is 1300, online is 1400 and TT is around 1300 as well, so in fact i play chess better than the OP

hurricane,

So you play better blitz chess than me.  Agreed.  I won't argue there.  Why does this make my online rating "overinflated"?  (Again, "inflated" is sufficient; "overinflated" is redundant.)  All it means is that I'm a crappy blitz player, which I readily admit, if you read my profile.  I need to work on seeing tactics faster, and my chess reflexes are slow enough that in a 5-minute game I'm basically just trying not to hang pieces, and usually not successful at that.  But in online games, I see tactics, I think about positions seriously, and I make moves that have given me a 1700+ rating.  I do use the analysis tool but the moves are my own... I don't use any engine at all.  I play well within the rules set down by the site (not even close to fuzzy boundaries), I don't use any tools that my opponents do not have the right to use as well, and I compete hard to win.

Just because your online rating is low doesn't give you the right to attack someone's legitimately earned rating.

Shazomei,

I've come around a bit more to see the logic behind taking time into account.  Taken to an extreme, anyone can solve a tactics problem (if they have days or weeks), so the amount of time matters.  This is esp. true given that you are trying to establish mental muscle memory (mental procedural memory) being able to recognize patterns quickly, almost at a subconscious level, or without conscious thought.

I guess I'm a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, because when my students take 10 minutes to factor a polynomial, then complain they don't have enough time for an exam, I point out that being able to factor a polynomial in a "reasonable" amount of time is part of what is being tested.  Factoring polynomials (well, at least simple ones) is more or less mental procedural memory after a certain point.  Same with arithmetic, basic algebra, trig, etc.

So I see the point.  But at the same time, I don't think someone should be able to "excel" (i.e. attain a strong rating) while failing half the problems.  That only teaches people to be sloppy.  True in chess as it is in math.  This is why I think the "average time to solve" should take into account (excluding outliers) a penalty for people who miss the problem.  This would make it much more difficult to work up your rating by answering 45% of the problems correctly with an average time of 15 seconds.

I don't have a good answer to the pedagogical need, at some point, to penalize people for taking too much time, so that they are given problems for which they can really work on their speed.  There's a balance there somewhere.