I feel that I have hit the 'glass ceiling' in both my Tactics Trainer and Standard Live rating. Still there is a 500 points gap between the two ( tactics being the higher ).
Tactics training score/ live game elo?
Sort:
Dec 4, 2013
0
#3
....I think I did not express myself as clear I wanted.
It is said that 99% of chess is tactics. If somebody has 3500 score of tactics
he is "GM of tactics" , if somebody has elo 1100 of live standard, he is beginner of chess.
Odd ? Needs expanation?
lucialaban wrote:
....I think I did not express myself as clear I wanted.
It is said that 99% of chess is tactics. If somebody has 3500 score of tactics
he is "GM of tactics" , if somebody has elo 1100 of live standard, he is beginner of chess.
Odd ? Needs expanation?
Look. Earlier I would have said: this is impossible. But I have seen in chess things that I thought were impossible turning out to be possible.
For example I'm a relatively weak bullet player compared to standard live. When I'm frustrated and tired for other reasons than chess and try to release pressure by playing bullet I can easily become an 1200+ player. You can look at my bullet chart: it is just zig zag between 1200 and 1500. On very good days ( and in fact just before writing this post I had my best Tactics Trainer session in my life ) I can climb above 2200 in tactics. In Tactics Trainer I can't fall below a certain level even if I'm out of form since I have practiced so much that the solution of many problems I have learned by heart therefore instead of thinking I just solve them from my 'cache'. So I'm a living example that 1200+ live vs. 2200+ tactics is possible.
For me it's only like 50 points apart. Tactics being the lower.
I think the reason is that I've read a book on strategy and thus am able to find better moves in quite positions than others with similar tactical ability.
Having 3400 in tactics and 1100 in normal play sounds completely ridiculous to me. Even with no strategic knowledge whatsoever he should trash everybody at 1100 and thus increase his rating rather quickly.
Dec 5, 2013
0
#6
I agree, there are different days for sure. I must still say "but": The palyer in the question were playing a lot of games during a long time span-very, very steadily. And I checked just one game, he removed a protection of a square and got immediate knight fork king/rook!
Not very hard tactics exercise?
Perhaps I did talk too much of one example to be at a general level.
Other odd thing:Typical live standard elo of players with tactics scores 2000, 2100,2300,2500 (and above) was about 1600. Why not clear variation in live elo according to tacics score?
Unfortunately chess.com do not provide full list of players below 2000 in tactics scores.
Can it be that some with live elo 2600 is in tactics 1100 for example?
Yes, this is impossible -so was the first problem! 
ELO isn't an objective level. It's a comparison to the other players in the pool. In the case of tactics the entire scoring system is broken (partial credit for the first move even if you hang mate on the second). There's no reason the numbers should be the same or even similar.
I think some of those top tactics trainer ratings look rather fishy.
Some people play unrated games. I play mostly unrated. Not that my rating would be higher, I have no idea, but my tactics have gone up while my live chess rating just sits there.
Chess is more than tactics.
I hate tactics trainer as I do poorly with it. It makes about as angry as I can get. Problem is I have a hard time figuring out what the best possible tactic is or what it wants me to do. I see a good move or tactic but it turns out 2 be wrong..
Tactics trainer ratings are garbage and it is almost criminal that they are listed as if they had any relationship to real ratings ;).
Yeah many times it happened with me, I guessed some other winning idea n TT had some different plans....but yes most times I failed 2 find winning idea within less den 1 min.....if you consume more time n even if found Correct solutions TT software deduct few points from our rating dats more irritating
It's a good question, I have thought this before. I think post 7 and 10 are good suggestions why this is...and post 8.
chessmicky wrote:
In any case, a high score on the tactics trainer doesn't really mean that you're a good tactician! It's one thing to look at a position where you've been told that there is a winning tactic and to find that tactic. It's much more important--and difficult!--to detect a possible tactical shot in a game where no one is going to tap you on the shoulder and tell you "there's a tactic in this position!" Being able to spot even simple tactics in real life will do much more for your chess than solving the deepest and most complicated tactical exercises.
This is really the key. I'm looking for very different things in tactics trainer than I am in a real game. In tactics trainer I know for a fact that what I'm doing here either has a checkmate or will be winning material in the end (slight generalization), and so I'm looking at different sacrifices (including queen sacrifices) to try and make that happen...and oftentimes when I don't see it all the way through, I may take a shot in the dark with a sacrifice and, I'd say, more often than not it winds up working out.
In an actual game, there are times I'm not sure if I'm in a position where something I can do will have an immediate return of a forced checkmate or winning material...and if I don't see it all the way through, it's very hard for me to sacrifice material just hoping that maybe I've run into a situation similar to tactics trainer. Especially when it comes to a queen sacrifice, which is a do or die decision.
chessmicky wrote:
The expression "Tactics are 99% of chess" was never meant to be taken literally; it's simply a graphic way of saying that tactics are very important! Don't take any of these old pieces of chess wisdom so literally.
In any case, a high score on the tactics trainer doesn't really mean that you're a good tactician! It's one thing to look at a position where you've been told that there is a winning tactic and to find that tactic. It's much more important--and difficult!--to detect a possible tactical shot in a game where no one is going to tap you on the shoulder and tell you "there's a tactic in this position!" Being able to spot even simple tactics in real life will do much more for your chess than solving the deepest and most complicated tactical exercises.
It's true that no one in a game is going to tap you on the shoulder and tell you there is a tactic (unless someone is watching the game and cheating!) but if you can't solve tactical exercises when you know there is a win, then the chances of finding them in a game, where you don't know there is one, would seem to be pretty slim.
I don't think there is anything wrong with training aspects of your game in isolation by using tactics trainers, it is only like drilling your serve in tennis for example. If you are regularly doing tactics and solving difficult tactics then this should stand you in good stead when in calculating tactics in a real game.
good question! i think on average tactics trainer = 150 points higher than blitz, and blitz rating = 150 points lower than elo, so ur tactics rating (ON AVERAGE)= ur elo
I don't think in a normal game it's like that, that you will develop an eye to spot a tactic occuring.
Due to reading "The amateurs mind" I can well imagine how Silman would react to such a statement.
I'd say in a normal game it's more like this: Your strategical positioning, piece-coordination and limiting of the opponents opportunities more or less automatically lead to tactical possibilities.
For example: If you have pinned a piece, you can start looking around if there's a way to exploit that.
btickler wrote:
Tactics trainer ratings are garbage and it is almost criminal that they are listed as if they had any relationship to real ratings ;).
Obviously there is some correlation, for example titled members of the community tend to be nearer the top than bottom, but that's not really the point. TT ratings are used to select suitable tactic problems and nothing else - there doesn't need to be strong correlation with other ratings. In general, finding suitable opposition is usually the main purpose of most rating systems used in chess.
Xilmi wrote:
I don't think in a normal game it's like that, that you will develop an eye to spot a tactic occuring.
Due to reading "The amateurs mind" I can well imagine how Silman would react to such a statement.
I'd say in a normal game it's more like this: Your strategical positioning, piece-coordination and limiting of the opponents opportunities more or less automatically lead to tactical possibilities.
For example: If you have pinned a piece, you can start looking around if there's a way to exploit that.
Good strategy leads to tactical possibilities occuring but you still have to spot them. All the strategy in the world won't help you if you can't spot mate in one!
One of the main purposes of tactics drill is actually learn to recognize tactical opportunities. This is why it's necessary to solve big amount of exercises. When you see the same pattern repeat over and over again changes are that you will begin to instinctively see it - that means even during the game altough obviously some calculation is still usually necessary to make sure everything works as espected as every position is unique.
By the way, the above is argument for the timer in TT. If you are able to find the solution but only after long searching chances are that you don't have as good grasp of the underlying motifs as those who see it quickly.
I did take some samples from highest score tactics trainer results.
Then I did take the players live game standard elo.
Some cases even like 3400/1100, (tactics score/live elo)!
The case was not that the players were not played live standard.
Opinions? Experiences?
I understand that timed tactics training correlates better blizz (not very well even blizz) but still.