Tactics server

Originally posted by heinzkat
No it does not

it does.
H)"random" positions are not suited for engine-bulldozering.
P)they are not random.
H)why?
P)they're qualified for certain criteria by an engine.
H)then they're BS.
P)see B.

Originally posted by philidor position
it does.
H)"random" positions are not suited for engine-bulldozering.
P)they are not random.
H)why?
P)they're qualified for certain criteria by an engine.
H)then they're BS.
P)see B.

BS? Bachelor of Science?

Originally posted by heinzkat
BS? Bachelor of Science?

British Standard is more likely.

Originally posted by heinzkat
No it does not, I do believe the engine's evaluations are as "perfect" as you can get it in such positions (for practical purposes). I am not comfortable with the way they are used on CT though. CTS has some BetaX engine that poops out pretty nice positions and "logical" move sequences. CT has a Toga engine that just poops out Toga analysis lines, right? Th The user is asked to "play like Toga from a random position". That is one of my issues.

OK, not only B, but A and B.

if you were the hardcore defender of the human race, suggesting Reinfeld's, Seirawan's, Blokh's book over online tactics servers, that would be understandable. We'd go in our separate ways, nothing to argue about.

according to this, however, it sounds like you just like BetaX better than Toga. and what you mean by "logical" is that the variations are just cut before the point that there are more than one winning moves. so this goes back to A.
---
The user is asked to "play like Toga from a random position":

they are not random. they are chosen according to certain criteria. Again, if you wouldn't find that criteria trustworthy, being the hardcore defender of the human race, this would be fine.

However, if you agree that the Toga engine is 99.9% of the time accurate in tactical sequences, the above sentence is the same as "find the clearly winning tactical sequence(s)". so this goes back to B.

and I'm done with this, seriously there's not much to argue about, you keep saying the same thing in different words.

and I don't want to sound like a CTS hater here, that's totally not the case. CTS serves chess a big deal and that's great.

It's not because CTS is there, CT is bad. I understand what CTS wants from me, but that's irrelevant in this discussion. (I am sorry about the BetaX example, I just happened to think about it when writing). CT is bad in its own right. Have I made clear what facets I don't understand when faced with a CT problem?

Originally posted by heinzkat
It's not because CTS is there, CT is bad. I understand what CTS wants from me

http://chess.emrald.net/psolution.php?Pos=15756

What was it that CTS wanted from you in this position? Was it d2 leading to a longish mate in 12 (although obviously the opponent will resign much earlier than that), or was it Rf6 immediately winning the opponent queen? I'm glad the choice was clear to you, it wasn't to at least one of the IMs commenting on that problem.

A similar example:
http://chess.emrald.net/probprofile.php?Pos=27789

I hope you played the mate in 3 here instead of the mate in 5 (ignore their computer analysis, it's wrong 1...Ne3 which they don't even list mates in 5).

CT would still use both these positions if it found them in a game (and no other unresolvable ambiguities existed), the difference would be that Rf6 and Ne3 would get you a 'try again' response, instead of a fail as would happen on CTS.

Neither of these examples are isolated cases, there are hundreds of these types of positions on CTS. CTS clearly requires a gap between the best and second best move to keep a tactic in their set, CT does too, but the CTS is clearly larger. However they do not appear to demand that the second best move is not winning, so you end up with a bunch of examples like these - Viable winning lines that get you marked wrong.

BTW both these problems exhibit another thing a lot of people (especially those less skilled than you) don't like about CTS. The majority of CTS problems finish before the final tactical blow is made. I'm sure it was obvious to you how you were going to win at the end of the CTS line, but some users (especially the ones that failed the problem and want to see what they should have played) are still confused at the end. CT also has some problems that finish too early, but nowhere near as many as CTS.

I know you don't see this as a CTS versus CT issue, but you brought up the comparison so I thought it was fair to respond.

Regards,
Richard.

Originally posted by richardchesstempo
http://chess.emrald.net/psolution.php?Pos=15756

What was it that CTS wanted from you in this position? Was it d2 leading to a longish mate in 12 (although obviously the opponent will resign much earlier than that), or was it Rf6 immediately winning the opponent queen? I'm glad the choice was clear to you, it wasn't to at least one of the IMs com ou brought up the comparison so I thought it was fair to respond.

Regards,
Richard.

alright dude, chess tempo is awesome, usually if you fail the tactical exercise, there are comments from other users which help in the understanding. I always love it when someone puts forth a proposition only to have someone else point out the refutation. interface is great, not so sore on the eyes, for if you have large wide-screen monitor, it can be stressful on the eyes, but because of the subdued nature of chess tempo, its fairly easy on the eyes! the tactics are generally quite realistic, how many times we miss simple hanging pieces while searching for mating combinations. i like it and do not understand why some have issues!

Originally posted by wormwood
...and yet again you're back to 'explaining' your decisions by rybka evaluation.


and about my attitude, it was you who started calling me a troll. I've never spoken to you before, and hadn't even heard about you, but you still saw fitting to try to insult me. such things instantly forfeit the right to complain about a bloody nose.

If someone behaves like an idiot, it isn't unreasonable to point it out.

I'm using computer evaluation because saying +9 or +11 is much shorter than saying "a queen, or a queen and an extra couple of pawns."

I'd hoped not to need to explain this, but there you go.

In the meantime, Richard seems to have rather adequately dealt with heinze's problem with A) in his post above.

Originally posted by marvellosity
In the meantime, Richard seems to have rather adequately dealt with heinzkat's problem with A) in his post above.

What? By pointing out that on some random other place (what is CT's connection to emrald?? - is there one??) there are some ambiguous problems, fully makes an excuse for having such problems on a structural basis?

http://chessy.freehostia.com/index.php?idsp=127

Here, it is incorrect! Gladly I happen not to be part of the group who commented on it 🙂

edit: but bit by bit I am understanding better what CT is set up like thanks to these messages; yet if I say I haven't quite enjoyed CT until now, then you cannot disagree with it - it's MY opinion after all 🙂

Originally posted by marvellosity
If someone behaves like an idiot, it isn't unreasonable to point it out.

I'm using computer evaluation because saying +9 or +11 is much shorter than saying "a queen, or a queen and an extra couple of pawns."

I'd hoped not to need to explain this, but there you go.

In the meantime, Richard seems to have rather adequately dealt with heinze's problem with A) in his post above.

riiight. you so got me there. 🙄

Originally posted by heinzkat
What? By pointing out that on some random other place (what is CT's connection to emrald?? - is there one??) there are some ambiguous problems, fully makes an excuse for having such problems on a structural basis?

http://chessy.freehostia.com/index.php?idsp=127

Here, it is incorrect! Gladly I happen not to be part of the group who commented on it 🙂 ...[text shortened]... t quite enjoyed CT until now, then you cannot disagree with it - it's MY opinion after all 🙂

Hi Heinzkat,

No problem, I agree that overall what you are saying has little to do with CTS vs CT, it is a stand-alone argument about what you don't like with CT. I was simply responding to the 'I don't understand what CT wants, but I understand what CTS wants' aspect of your post.
Clearly CTS and CT wants similar things, i.e. that you play the move with the highest computer eval, the difference is that CT provides you with a safety net if you choose a second best but still winning move, CTS fails you. Due to structural differences in the way CTS chooses candidate positions, it appears that on CTS, the second best move in some of their ambiguous problems might be less likely to be chosen by a human, so you might notice this type of ambiguity less often, but that is not always the case.


Regards,
Richard.