23 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by heinzkatme too. in CTS, whenever I spot a materialistically (if that's a word) winning line, it usually becomes the correct one. In chesstempo however, I believe things are more realistic.
Perhaps I placed "child's disease" not clear enough. That little flaw of "mate in n" or "mate in n + 1" has been removed there for a long time already. But for CTS this really never has been an issue, I believe. [I have never encountered it]
in this position, I had calculated, even correctly, that 1.Reb7 wins a whole rook, and didn't bother to look for anything else, but actually it walks into a totally lost ending, and of course was rejected.
23 Nov 08
Originally posted by diskamylgood puzzle, didn't thought of it.
me too. in CTS, whenever I spot a materialistically (if that's a word) winning line, it usually becomes the correct one. In chesstempo however, I believe things are more realistic.
[fen]1R3rk1/P3Rb2/8/3p2pp/r1pB1p2/5P1P/3b2P1/7K w - - 0 0[/fen]
in this position, I had calculated, even correctly, that 1.Reb7 wins a whole rook, and didn't bother to loo ...[text shortened]... r anything else, but actually it walks into a totally lost ending, and of course was rejected.
oh and btw, has anyone lately having trouble improving their rating lately? because I have been oscillating around 1570-1580 on CTS for the past month!
23 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by EmLaskerhave you found the winning line?
good puzzle, didn't thought of it.
oh and btw, has anyone lately having trouble improving their rating lately? because I have been oscillating around 1570-1580 on CTS for the past month!
I did have serious problems improving my rating there. I have been oscillating around 1300-1400 for the past year! On chesstempo standard though, it doesn't seem to have an end (yet).
25 Nov 08
Originally posted by diskamylwhite rook takes the black rook duh!
have you found the winning line?
I did have serious problems improving my rating there. I have been oscillating around 1300-1400 for the past year! On chesstempo standard though, it doesn't seem to have an end (yet).
25 Nov 08
I'd say there's virtually no correlation. On CTS, I try to solve every problem correctly, even if it takes minutes. I believe that I learn the tactics better that way. My CTS rating is in the low 1100s and rarely gets as high as the low 1200s. My accuracy is currently 89.8%. My RHP rating is in the low 1600s, based on a fairly small number of games.
27 Nov 08
Originally posted by heinzkatI have some questions then.
Good stuff!
http://chess.emrald.net/ctsTacCountries.php?ISO=NL
Took me only 40,366 tries 😲
how did you do that?
that, and the spectacular 99% trial rating. what's your secret?
are you heavily underrated on RHP?
02 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Jusuhhaving a 2000+ rating in CTS is one serious task. if you check out the top rankings, http://chess.emrald.net/ctsActTact.php, there are 4 titled players there, 2 IMs and 2 GMs who play very actively, and the four have an average rating of 2056, only six points lower than heinzkat.
He has about 2000 rating in both RHP and CTS. How could he be heavily underrated?
I think he could be considered as a player with the tactical ability of at least a master, altough he doesn't seem to think that way.
edit: well maybe not "tactical ability" as a whole (with calculative skills etc), but I think it would be safe to say "tactical pattern recognition", which doesn't make it any less important.
03 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by diskamylWell yeah, I actually know pretty well that CTS ratings are highly deflated, maybe even hundreds of points compared to OTB or unofficial RHP ratings. Personally I have really hard time re-passing 1800 CTS barrier after the long break from problem solving.
having a 2000+ rating in CTS is one serious task. if you check out the top rankings, http://chess.emrald.net/ctsActTact.php, there are 4 titled players there, 2 IMs and 2 GMs who play very actively, and the four have an average rating of 2056, only six points lower than heinzkat.
I think he could be considered as a player with the tactical ability of at d be safe to say "tactical pattern recognition", which doesn't make it any less important.
But that said, the world is full of titled players, even GMs, who arent that good at insta-tactics solving (like CTS). Many IMs and GMs have hard time winning bullet-oriented club players in bullet games, due the fact that bullet chess has considerably little to do with normal chess. Same applies to CTS, which is kind of bullet-form of problem solving.