CTS record ! ! ! :))))))))))))))))

Originally posted by ivan2908
Hmm.. i did not think that way.. You think that is probably better to care more about succes rate ? But then you lose points on time... Instead of that I do like this : I try to find a solution as fast as I can but if I fail than I go to the unrated review and take my time, if necessary...

It depends on your goal for practicing there. The proponents of having a higher success rate argue that while that does adversely impact your rating, in a game it frequently comes down to 1, or sometimes 2, mistakes. If you are making 5 or 10 mistakes out of every 30 moves, your CTS rating may be higher, but your tactical accuracy is not 'gameworthy'.

I am at 81% or so there, with around 13,000 problems solved. I wasn't initially going for accuracy so my percentage would be higher if I were to start over now.

Still, it is a great place to practice no matter which school of thought you follow.

The quality of the problems is not high its just the time taken that gives you points. Any 1500+ on ICC can see 1... Qxc4 2. Nxd6 which is how the problem goes. How many times are you likely to encounter this type of blunder unless in bullet chess?

Looking at the number 10 player on CTS who is ranked 2016, his failure page lists 1500 rated problems. You would have expected him to fail 2000+ rated problems not 1500 rated problems.

Originally posted by ludz
[fen]rnq1r1k1/pb2ppbp/1p1p2p1/1N1P4/2P5/6P1/PP3PBP/R1BQR1K1 b - - 0 1[/fen]

The quality of the problems is not high its just the time taken that gives you points. Any 1500+ on ICC can see 1... Qxc4 2. Nxd6 which is how the problem goes. How many times are you likely to encounter this type of blunder unless in bullet chess?

Looking at the number 10 player ...[text shortened]... ated problems. You would have expected him to fail 2000+ rated problems not 1500 rated problems.

what's your ICC handle?

the point of CTS is pattern recognition. and believe me, the problems rated over 1500 are not that easy. it's always not the first thing that comes into your mind, and you have to find the other one in a matter of seconds.

Originally posted by wormwood
well my homebrewn 'theory' is that contrary to popular belief, tactics is not the most important thing in blitz. I believe understanding the type of positions you get into is more important. - most moves in blitz are not tactical, any more than in slow games. instead, most moves are in situations where you need to do a reasonably good, non-los y move very quickly. and yet, he keeps routinely winning against these 2200-2600 ICC guys.

I watched a couple of those vids and it was a second shocker. Really, chess is so beyond my imagination. I certainly don't even understand what makes a good player good. I really don't. if nakamura cannot do well in CTS and is almost the most renowned GM for tactical abilities, I really know very, very little about this game.

actually my most recent game (at FICS) made me think about giving this all up. I'm doing pretty good at CTS or CT-Art (at least below the 40 level questions), but I still play like 1200s. (ok, I play like 1500 most of the time, but can play like 1200 as well). after all this effort and my expectations of becoming (at the very least) a solid 1600 player, (meaning around 1650 rating and having a slightly possible score against 1600s) getting stuck at 1550s and losing to 1600s like a total idiot and this whole chess loser thing really makes me feel stupid. MAN I'm so pissed off!!!

well anyway, nevermind. those vids were so surprising. thanks.

Originally posted by wormwood
that's not a bad idea, but it's even better to do them correctly to begin with. -each problem you guess wrong imprints the wrong thought pattern even harder. don't enforce bad habits, try to weed them out instead. subtract the negative.

I do that and maybe it does imprint that pattern but the thought that goes with the pattern is "don't do that"...at least for me it is.