07 Aug 07
Originally posted by HolyTI agree.
I tend to agree with those who say that one should not move quickly just because it looks good or feels right, but rather understand the situation before moving, even if it takes more time.
I’m wondering if people could devise their own rating system while using CTS and forget about the CTS rating (which encourages quick guesses). e.g. a basic starting point could be (successTotal – failureTotal) / totalSessionTime. Coefficients could then be used to penalise failures more, or put more emphasis on success rather than time.
Maybe this won’t work so well due to the varying difficulty of tests?! But would this average out over a long enough session?! Does CTS increase the average difficulty based on a higher CTS rating?
Just a thought. Not tried it in practice. Maybe issues and not worth the hassle.
07 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Varenkayep, the higher you get, the higher rated problems you get. and the problems themselves are dynamically rated as well, so that if a problem is solved, it will 'lose' rating points relative to the solver's rating.
Does CTS increase the average difficulty based on a higher CTS rating?
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by wormwoodThanks for the confirmation. So having one's own scoring system won't work well. There goes that idea! 🙂
the higher you get, the higher rated problems you get.
It's a pity the CTS system encourages too much guessing. I realise they want to minimise cheating.
07 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Varenkathat's one reason, but I suspect the real reason is that the guys who came up with the idea thought that the short TC has some intrinsic value to it. and I sort of agree. it's not a system to perfect your calculation skills, but tactical vision instead.
Thanks for the confirmation. So having one's own scoring system won't work well. There goes that idea! 🙂
It's a pity the CTS system encourages too much guessing. I realise they want to minimise cheating.
and at least GM ziatdinov recommends blitz with very short TC. if I remember correctly, 5 0 was too slow in his opinion. I can't really agree with him about the 5 0, but there must be a reason why he thinks that.
GM ziatdinov on jeremy silman website:
"To study tactics, I recommend my timed tactical software program, or similar software programs. A good book of combinations is beneficial too, but less efficient and not as fun. Basically, set up a cycle of ten positions, go through them until you get a perfect score, then set a cycle from 10-20, get a 100% score, then go through problems 1-20, repeating this cycle until you can go through 1000 problems "by hand" (not mind) without any mistakes. If you try this method with my tactics program and complete it, you will have the tactical ability of a Grandmaster. I have had more than a hundred students and nobody had enough will power to finish this tactical training method. Is it my students or is it me? Well, take only thirty minutes a day and slowly memorize 1000 problems; take a year or two if you have to. It comes down to will power, and that I cannot provide.
Another effective method for improving your chess tactics is blitz chess. It is a great training tool, but you must play five-minute games as if they are one-minute games, otherwise it makes no sense. Pros don't consider five-minute games as blitz at all -- one, two, or three-minute games, yes, that is blitz! More than three minutes is only entertainment for retired people. Blitz is about developing tactical bravery and intuition. If you are able to play five-minute games as one-minute games, you are doing right, if not, it is only wasting time. If you lost a lot of training time in childhood for developing your tactical feelings, I think fast games would be helpful, but do not take your results too seriously. Practice this form of tactical training and then analyze your chess "instincts" after the game with a computer."
http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_instruction/Ziatdinov_Pt_5.html
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by wormwoodFair point, but there are many positions on CTS that require calculation. e.g. I look and I see some ideas... a weak back rank... a queen that doesn't have much space... some undefended pieces... the possibility of a bishop sac on h7... etc. Ok, but which ideas are relevant? Pattern recognition has its limitations. Often we need to check the specifics of the position (e.g. calculate).
it's not a system to perfect your calculation skills, but tactical vision instead
I'm not suggesting tactical training should not have an aggressive time limit, but I do think that CTS is a bit too fast for some tests (esp. longer combinations).
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by VarenkaThere are slower sites if cts is too fast, like chesstempo.com
Fair point, but there are many positions on CTS that require calculation. e.g. I look and I see some ideas... a weak back rank... a queen that doesn't have much space... some undefended pieces... the possibility of a bishop sac on h7... etc. Ok, but which ideas are relevant? Pattern recognition has its limitations. Often we need to check the specifics of ...[text shortened]... me limit, but I do think that CTS is a bit too fast for some tests (esp. longer combinations).
07 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by VarenkaI think I can use CTS effectively even with the flaws in the rating system. I just don't put as much stock in my rating. My primary focus is my success percentage. Keeping that as a constant (that is, that I'm always striving to improve my success % ), then improvements in my rating become meaningful.
I’m wondering if people could devise their own rating system while using CTS and forget about the CTS rating (which encourages quick guesses). e.g. a basic starting point could be (successTotal – failureTotal) / totalSessionTime. Coefficients could then be used to penalise failures more, or put more emphasis on success rather than time.
I am slowly improving (in jumps) while keeping my success % high and climbing. And I am seeing patterns more quickly. And as I keep doing this, CTS will give me harder problems so I'll keep getting challenged.
Some day when I'm at 1300, I'll get almost every 1200 problem in 3 seconds and the 1300's in 5-20 seconds, with confidence that I understand the position.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by Varenkathe problem with your idsea Varenka is that you get a high rating by solving quickly.
Thanks for the confirmation. So having one's own scoring system won't work well. There goes that idea! 🙂
It's a pity the CTS system encourages too much guessing. I realise they want to minimise cheating.
so, the more you aim for accuracy (eg take ones time) the lower the rating and thus lower the difficualty of each puzzle.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by ShinidokiYeah, exactly. Hence I dropped it.
the problem with your idsea Varenka is that you get a high rating by solving quickly.
so, the more you aim for accuracy (eg take ones time) the lower the rating and thus lower the difficualty of each puzzle.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by HolyTOk, but will it keep scaling up? The harder problems tend to involve more calculation (no always, but typically so). So you may find a plateau where your success % is maintained but at a time rate that the CTS system doesn't merit any longer.
Some day when I'm at 1300, I'll get almost every 1200 problem in 3 seconds and the 1300's in 5-20 seconds, with confidence that I understand the position.
My highest rating of 1713 was achieved when I was willing to gamble more and hope for some luck. There was just no way I could calculate fast enough to verify many of the moves.
07 Aug 07
Originally posted by Restless Soulhaha! thanx for the link! i've been looking for something like that for ages.....
There are slower sites if cts is too fast, like chesstempo.com
unfortunatly it still has the problem CTS has, good moves are punnished for, only the correct moves score points....
which means instead of snapping up a hung peice, you have to look for the anoying 6 move mate....