- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Originally posted by diskamylThe time you take should/can be longer for stronger players. I don't think relative novices get a lot out of in-depth analysis whereas stronger players do.
5 minutes? are you kidding? my average for CT-Art in the 30 level difficulty problems is probably 10 minutes, which means there are plenty of 3-5 minutes, and a bunch of at least 30 minutes.
I respect your experience, but I have to disagree with the 5 minutes approach. My most pleasant moments in chess were the ones I totally calculated all the lines of ...[text shortened]... to go, but I cannot encourage myself for that kind of dedication and patience.
Originally posted by ErekoseWouldn't it be the opposite for tactics? The stronger they are the quicker the problems should be solved.
The time you take should/can be longer for stronger players. I don't think relative novices get a lot out of in-depth analysis whereas stronger players do.
2 edits
Originally posted by heinzkatyears of hard training. but maybe you're getting confused by the metrics? 1950+ is very strong on CTS, not even all GMs make it.
To get served the highest rated problems (2291 is the highest) your CTS rating has to be 1950+. I've never even been close to being close to that. What to do to get there?
the high accuracy training on CTS is an acid tested method of improvement. we've tested every way of doing CTS over the years, and that's the result. it's the most efficient way, over longer periods. all high accuracy solvers* I know have started with low accuracy/high rating strategy, hit a wall at 1500 or so, and ended up doing high accuracy.
and practically none of us believed the gospel at first, but were forced to eventually repent and mend our evil ways. after hitting the 'improvement wall' that is. 🙂
*excluding maybe chessdog & trallala, who have done high accuracy from the start afaik. as has bahus I think?
1 edit
Yes, 1950+ was more of an example (to show that most of the users with a high success rate/who take their time for solving positions do not get the difficult problems - perhaps at the highest a 1700 problem - except for an active IM and a handful of others). Perhaps it's an aim too high for now, but eventually one should be able to get there (although I haven't even reached 1850 yet, although I was close when being quite sharp a while ago).
"Hard training" doing what? Hard training just solving more CTS problems? Hard training doing other tactical methods?
"...all high accuracy solvers have started with low accuracy/high rating strategy, hit a wall at 1500 or so..."
I can see one wants to improve their accuracy then, if 1550 is "out of reach" the highest rated problems you would get to solve are only 1660 anyway.
Originally posted by heinzkatbeing close to 1850 at CTS is quite serious, wow.
Yes, 1950+ was more of an example (to show that most of the users with a high success rate/who take their time for solving positions do not get the difficult problems - perhaps at the highest a 1700 problem - except for an active IM and a handful of others). Perhaps it's an aim too high for now, but eventually one should be able to get there (although I hav ...[text shortened]... s "out of reach" the highest rated problems you would get to solve are only 1660 anyway.
1 edit
Originally posted by heinzkatby 'hard training' I meant that you need title-level tactical muscle (in this specific type of solving), and whatever leads to that. which I can only guess about, but would suppose hard work at tactics in general. - larry christiansen said somewhere that he practically wore out a copy of renfield's 1001 sacs, and that it was the main thing behind his tactical improvement. seems pretty straightforward.
Yes, 1950+ was more of an example (to show that most of the users with a high success rate/who take their time for solving positions do not get the difficult problems - perhaps at the highest a 1700 problem - except for an active IM and a handful of others). Perhaps it's an aim too high for now, but eventually one should be able to get there (although I hav s "out of reach" the highest rated problems you would get to solve are only 1660 anyway.
about the relative easiness of CTS problems, have you taken into account that the time used is an integral part of complexity? the hardest problems are not that complex in themselves, and an average player can solve all of them just fine with a little more time. but doing it in 16 seconds correctly, THAT's what makes it as hard as it is. -what I'm getting at, is that (in fast tactics) it doesn't matter that the 1500-problems are relatively easy. that's not the point why you train them, but instead the speed you do it with.
the solution of the problem is only a tool, a way to get there, and the real beef is to train the solving mechanism in your brain. people often make the mistake of mixing up the measure (a number) with the real goal of solving better (action). train the action, not the number.
Originally posted by diskamylMost of the time I'm hovering around CTS 1800, "hitting the wall" at 1820. My accuracy reaches laughable depths when I'm not being sharp - following on the 1845 top I reached for a while, my rating fell nearly 150 points, resulting in quite an amusing graph (I dare anyone to make a better example of CTS rating deterioration). And even when I'm sharp, my accuracy is not that admirable anyway: I have just worked through quite a lot of positions this afternoon with some enthusiasm, improved my end-of-session rating a few points to ~1815, but only made them with 65% accuracy, missing quite some "easy" moves on the way.
being close to 1850 at CTS is quite serious, WOW.
Wormwood, yes, you describe exactly why I "refuse" taking longer to make the accuracy number higher - the 2000+ positions are quite easy to see through when one just works out the possibilities indeed - no more than 30 seconds needed in most cases. That is a reason why I find it strange to read that some seem to be proud of their 1300 rating with +95% accuracy, looking down on the "poor plebs" that cannot get more than six in ten right - the positions they solve while obtaining that accuracy level are very easy, even more when you take a minute for every one of them - the positions are designed to have some wrong move seduction in them that leads to being made incorrectly within a few seconds (the higher rated the more and bigger seductions). But one can have genuine benefits from this practice, so who am I to criticize.
Also I normally strive to solve the positions within 3 seconds rather than 10. Might explain my wacky (?) accuracy rate too.
...while I do not go for an accurate accuracy, on the other hand I do wish to make my CTS rating number higher. Just like "everyone" wants their chess rating to become a bit higher than it is now, I wish to become a bit "stronger" tactically, although sometimes it's more a bit of CTS handiness (recognizing the position from an earlier session; following the principle when in check, attack the checking piece with the King if possible, such things) that helps getting your rating higher than "normal" tactical sharpness. Hence the question. (I think I've repeated my writings a few too many times in these few messages, but ah well that's how it is)
Reinfeld's "1001 Brilliant ways to win" seems to me to be aimed at a lower-rated audience (I don't have the book, but there are a lot of Internet sources that give all positions in FEN format), so I do not really get Christiansen's praisal (as you say) of it to become better (I doubt he became a GM because he studied Reinfeld's book) - but I might be incorrect here as I do not have the book.
One tip from me is the Dutch course by Brunia and Van Wijgerden, which currently seems to be translated to other languages as well (sample exercises available too): http://www.stappenmethode.nl.
1 edit
Originally posted by heinzkat65%, that is 2 correct 1 wrong out of every 3 problems, probably imprints the wrong patterns about as much as the right ones into your brain. -and yeah, dk probably gets a bit overly passionate about the accuracy thing, but there's a great deal of truth in what he says. it's very hard to maintain high accuracy, no matter how 'easy' the problems are. upping your accuracy from 65% to 85% would drop your rating 100-150 points. 95% probably drops around 250-300 points. dk with his 99% at 1300s can probably break 1700 (at 67% ) at will, and quite easily. my max would settle around 1800-1850 with 67% at this time. that's the sort of average trade-offs you can expect in practice.
Most of the time I'm hovering around CTS 1800, "hitting the wall" at 1820. My accuracy reaches laughable depths when I'm not being sharp - following on the 1845 top I reached for a while, my rating fell nearly 150 points, resulting in quite an amusing graph (I dare anyone to make a better example of CTS rating deterioration). And even when I'm sharp, my acc s well (sample exercises available too): http://www.stappenmethode.nl.
I think christiansen said 1001 sacs not 1001 ways to win, but I might remember wrong. anyway, that's his opinion on his improvement, I have no idea how much truth there was in it. one of his old friends might remember it 'differently'. along the lines of "yeah, larry used to read EVERY tactics book he could get, tried hypnosis, yoga and shady experimental drug treatments. from age 6 to 26, a new tactics book every week." 🙂 then again, I've heard similar stories about other masters as well, so it just might be true.
8 edits
Originally posted by wormwood( yes, it's 1001 combinations and sacrifices, at least I remember it as that too. and not 99% with 1300, 90% with 1412 🙂 )
65%, that is 2 correct 1 wrong out of every 3 problems, probably imprints the wrong patterns about as much as the right ones into your brain. -and yeah, dk probably gets a bit overly passionate about the accuracy thing, but there's a great deal of truth in what he says. it's very hard to maintain high accuracy, no matter how 'easy' the problems are. upping in, I've heard similar stories about other masters as well, so it just might be true.
today I'm in the mood to bet. Here it goes, heinzkat, I beat you could not make 1300 with 99% 😛
by the way, even 90% is not as easy as it looks. Yes, the problems are very easy most of the time at low ratings, but if you want the rating the keep going up (even slowly), it becomes a challenge. make 2 mistakes in a row (which happens quite frequently towards the end of a 2 hour session) and you have to get the next 18 without a single mistake and without allowing a 30 points rating decrease (which happens frequently too 🙂 )
by the way, that reinfeld book is pretty good and it's free of copyright, can be found the internet. There are pretty challenging problems. Yesterday I went crazy over this one:
white to move.
I was just wondering if I could make a second "heinzkat's accuracy account", but I think that is not allowed. 99% should be "easy"; just set up every position on a board and figuring out the position, before getting near the mouse. The mouse is faster than the hand, and the hand faster than the brain.
Originally posted by heinzkatyes but your scenario is not "accurate" for not taking into account the 1300 rating part of my bet🙂
I was just wondering if I could make a second "heinzkat's accuracy account", but I think that is not allowed. 99% should be "easy"; just set up every position on a board and figuring out the position, before getting near the mouse. The mouse is faster than the hand, and the hand faster than the brain.
Originally posted by heinzkatthere's no limit for multiple accounts on CTS, and many have created a 'slow account' for the exact reason you describe. I don't see much point in it, but it's perfectly possible. no accounts on CTS are ever deleted, not even the known cheaters.
I was just wondering if I could make a second "heinzkat's accuracy account", but I think that is not allowed. 99% should be "easy"; just set up every position on a board and figuring out the position, before getting near the mouse. The mouse is faster than the hand, and the hand faster than the brain.
you only have 16 seconds at 1300s as well, it's not enough to set up a position. 🙂 and if you want to pursuit the high accuracy experiment, a word of advice: you need to aim to roughly twice the number of 'correct in a row' than the average you seek. or you'll fall short. I'm not sure if it's because of math or psychology, that's just the way it seems to go. 🙂 so in practice to get 99% (steadily, over a longer period, not just one session) you need to aim at 200 correct in a row.