CTS rating = RHP rating

Originally posted by wormwood
a high CTS rating relative to RHP rating is most likely an indication of solving at a very low accuracy level.

76.5%

Originally posted by EmLasker
76.5%

that's a rate of one losing blunder every 4th move. and although you'll probably be more careful in a real game, a 25% blunder rate isn't exactly helping.

my session average is currently around 95%.

My CTS rating: 1300s
My RHP rating: 1500s
Success rating: 69%

Originally posted by EmLasker
wow, how come everyone's rating on CTS is low, but they are at least 300+ on rhp? EXCEPT FOR ME THAT IS:'(

...because you spend too much time on CTS?

1550-1600 CTS
1500-1750 RHP I play more games than most and have huge rating swings when I drink or study.

I used to have CTS solidly around 1700-1750, nowadays have no idea. RHP is less.

Originally posted by zebano
1550-1600 CTS
1500-1750 RHP I play more games than most and have huge rating swings when I drink or study.

I think you could easily see yourself as a 1800 rated player, but only the level of your games aren't there yet (due to reasons you've stated).

Originally posted by diskamyl
1550-1600 CTS
1500-1750 RHP I play more games than most and have huge rating swings when I drink or study.

I think you could easily see yourself a sa 1800 player, but not all of your games are at that level (due to reasons you've stated above).

Excuse me for the bump,

Ranking: 13
Rating: 2025
Success: 72.3%

😀

Top-10 with 2036! => http://chess.emrald.net/index.php

Originally posted by wormwood
that's a rate of one losing blunder every 4th move.

No, it's not. Playing a sub-optimal move (CTS only allows 1 correct move) does not equate to a "losing blunder".

D

Originally posted by Ragnorak
No, it's not. Playing a sub-optimal move (CTS only allows 1 correct move) does not equate to a "losing blunder".

D

The CTS positions are constructed like this:

1: One good move;
2: All alternatives are rubbish.

Not always the alternatives lose immediately, that is true; but then it might be the difference between winning a piece and not winning a piece - then you might not be "losing" but you did miss a tactical shot.

Originally posted by heinzkat
The CTS positions are constructed like this:

1: One good move;
2: All alternatives are rubbish.

Not always the alternatives lose immediately, that is true; but then it might be the difference between winning a piece and not winning a piece - then you might not be "losing" but you did miss a tactical shot.

or you mate in 3 instead of 2 and they dock you points.

Originally posted by zebano
or you mate in 3 instead of 2 and they dock you points.

I thought that was a child's disease on "chesstempo" - on "emrald" such positions do not occur for one to solve. [if you really believe your move mates too, probably you missed some characteristic of the position]

Originally posted by heinzkat
I thought that was a child's disease on "chesstempo" - on "emrald" such positions do not occur for one to solve. [if you really believe your move mates too, probably you missed some characteristic of the position]

that's not true for chess-tempo either. Whenever I thought something like that, I found a comment left below the problem showing the fault in my line. If there really is another "very similarly good" move, it will accept it. However, if your line wins a piece instead of mating in 3, then it won't accept it.