No progress at the Chess Tactics Server PDF Print E-mail
Written by Sciurus   
Friday, 02 March 2007

It has been a while since I wrote the last post on chess tactics training. I am still working through 50 tactics problems at the Chess Tactics Server (CTS) almost every day. In fact, the 30 min this takes is almost all of the time I am able to allocate to studying chess on most days. I am doing this now since 7 months. During the first 3 months, my rating at CTS went up continuously. Since 4 months, however, it has been going nowhere. At first, I attributed this to a lower quality of study - I got sloppy and moved through the problems without really thinking about them. I tried to change that but there is still no rating progress. Strangely enough, I feel that I am becoming better at tactics during actual games. This brings up a question: Is there a correlation between the rating for doing tactics puzzles at CTS and actual game performance or do these ratings measure different things?

Chess table in the winter
Photo by Saadiq
To explain this, we first have to take a look at the way CTS ratings work. The ratings at CTS are based both on the difficulty and the time needed to solve a problem. The harder a problem is, the more points are added to the rating for a correct solution. Similar to that, the faster a problem is solved, the better for the rating. However, if a problem is not solved within 15-30s, the resulting rating decrease for failing to solve the problem is as high as if the problem is solved correctly, but too slowly. I observed that the number of mistakes I make during my training sessions at CTS decreased significantly over the last month or so. However, I am still not able to solve many problems within the time limit, resulting in a constant rating.

What is the role of tactics in chess games? Particularly in beginner-level play, tactics almost always decide the game. I used to make a lot of blunders, even leaving my queen en prise. However, I cannot remember a single case in the last weeks where I committed a big-time blunder like this (This will probably change tomorrow, now that I write about it in public). To win a chess game, it is not enough to play a few brilliant moves. The other moves have to be reasonable, too. I believe that the most important thing that a beginner has to learn is to avoid big blunders, well, besides the rules of chess, of course!

It is hard if not impossible to say if my lower blunder rate is caused by the constant tactics drills at CTS or if the increased success rate at CTS is a consequence of my growing experience playing chess games. At the very least, however, studying chess tactics gives me the tools to win games. Therefore, I will continue my daily tactics regime at CTS, even though it can be tricky to motivate myself without seeing the ratings go up - but who knows, may be even I get faster someday...

Comments (13)Add Comment
CTS
written by Robert, March 02, 2007
Interesting--I have just gotten into CTS and am around 1400 rating there, but wonder also if for training purposes trying to raise the rating is important, or if trying to get a high percentage correct is best.

I do feel like it's a good training method overall; viewing a lot of positions should imprint the ideas and increase tactical intuition, if nothing else.

P.S.--I'm putting up a link to your excellent site today over at my own chess blog! smilies/smiley.gif
lamplight chess
written by Saadiq, March 04, 2007
It's always so cool to find out someone's found a photo useful. Thanks for the credit and leaving me the note. Cheers.
...
written by TommyC, March 14, 2007
The UK players I know personally.

2 FantasticCat 1790 - a 184 ECF (2219 Elo) player who has been significantly higher.

11 kingscrusher 1709 - a 181 ECF (2157 Elo) but a very fine OTB tactician.

12 TomChivers 1701 - me, 160 ECF.

24 TheCypriot 1627 - bit of a shocker he's so low - he is 192 ECF (2160 Elo) although is more a positional player.

43 SicilianSmaug 1547 - a very good correspondence player, who I don't think has found a way to convert that standard to OTB.

I'm not sure how this answers your question, "Is there a correlation between the rating for doing tactics puzzles at CTS and actual game performance or do these ratings measure different things?" . . . hope it's of interest though.
...
written by Sciurus, March 16, 2007
Tom-
thanks for the interesting data. it is certainly not enough to prove anything but if I look at players with around 2200 ELO OTB rating having only 1700 at CTS it certainly makes me feel less bad about my CTS rating hovering around 1200.
...
written by ND, March 18, 2007
I'd say that of course there is a correlation. If there were no correlation at all, that would mean that one would have no idea whether you or Kasparov would have higher CTS-rating just based on your other rating. However, precisely because there is a correlation one would know Kasparov would rate really high on CTS. Correlation exists in degrees though, so there need not be a 1 to 1 correlation.
...
written by Sciurus, March 18, 2007
ND-
you are of course correct! I should have phrased the question better. In contrast to Kasparov, my most significant weakness is certainly lack of tactical skill. However, I believe that I got better at playing chess but without seeing an increase of my CTS rating. CTS is a measure for how fast someone recognizes tactical patterns but speed is not the only decisive factor for tactical play in slow games.
Well, I am afraid this still sounds a bit confused. may be I have to think a bit more about this.
...
written by ND, March 19, 2007
Well I can easily see how one can get better at chess (for a while) without improving tactically (since it isn't the only area), while at the same time think that the gap between tactical and positional skill can only be so big.

Position and tactics aren't that different: if you know what kind of positions have tactics within them, you know what kind of positions you want to achieve. And in order to make use of good positions, you often need to know tactics. So they belong together, sort of.
...
written by ND, March 19, 2007
...and I contrasted tactics to position rather than commenting on finding tactics quickly Vs finding it more slowly, which was your main point. Sorry, I was just rushing ahead and now I have to go. smilies/smiley.gif
...
written by likesforests, August 14, 2007
"most of my games are lost by huge material losses before the endgame" - I turned onto endings when my tactical ability seemed to max out at ~1335 on Chess Tactics Server. Perhaps I could have risen another 65 points, but I just don't see myself as a tactical wizard and thus have forgone the De La Maza path. Fischer and Capablanca believed that players should begin their chess studies with the ending, learning how to nurture a single pawn advantage into victory or how to secure a draw when down as much as a rook. I also enjoy it more! May all our paths sooner or later lead to chess enlightenment.
...
written by likesforests, August 14, 2007
Of course, before an important game I would spend a few weeks refreshing my tactics to their peak level. smilies/cool.gif
...
written by Sciurus, August 15, 2007
Likesforests:
Good point. I seem to max out at CTS lately, too (although at a lower level smilies/sad.gif ). May be I should just accept that and concentrate on endings for a while. I don't know...
...
written by stefanT, January 02, 2009
I also hope that solving diagram after diagram will print some basic tactical concept into my mind. I too hope that burning them in memory untill they become second nature, will increase my capabilities in real life chess (OTB). My rating is on average 1900 ELO for around 20 years now and I'm getting bored not to ever reach the 2000 limit in the end. I have 3 principal difficulties and got rid of a forth in in real chess (40 moves in 2 hours and 60 minutes for the remainder of the game).
1°) Time pressure: I considered to speed up natural opening moves whilst preparing before the match and using my time efficiently (concentration), this had helped to abandon blunders under time pressure
2°) Nerves: the most underestimated problem, who doesn't freak out if things get overcomplicated and time pressure adds to this. You have to have nerves in sharp positions, and not everyone is that risk minded or is risk averse. So some will never play tactics in the open field and avoid those variations if hey can.
3°) Playing black. I feel that having white is like running 100m with a better reaction time to the gun shot. Its very hard to keep up with someone if he steps in earlier.
4°) Tactics: This is where CTS comes in handy. Recognising tactic patterns , and going for a move without having it calculated all, just knowing or having a good feeling of the current situation despite perhaps equal chess material is part of the aspects international masters have in their arsenal.

conclusion: everyone suffers from his own limitations, I hope someday that all my efforts pay-off and I reach the 2000 limit at the age of 40 years. I only see youn players under 21 making progress the rest is in most cases keeping momentum
...
written by Sciurus, January 05, 2009
stefanT-
thanks for the thoughts. Nerves are certainly important. I myself tend to overlook the most simple moves that would get me out of trouble in cases when I believe I will lose.
It is certainly tough to improve when you are not young anymore - I will reach the 40 mark soon, too - but I have faith that everyone can improve, there are great studies out there showing how elastic the human brain is. So don't give up!

Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
Last Updated ( Friday, 02 March 2007 )
 
< Prev   Next >
[ Back ]