Why am I 1600 rated but have a 2700 tactics rating?

Sort:
AyushBlundersAgain

Hello! I have went through many tactics and I recently hit 2700. I also have a puzzle rush high of 38. I only have a rating of 1635, but I plan to have a high of 40 in puzzle rush and a 2850 rating in tactics.

Why is my tactical rating so high?

AyushBlundersAgain
AyushMChessMator wrote:

Hello! I have went through many tactics and I recently hit 2700. I also have a puzzle rush high of 38. I only have a rating of 1635, but I plan to have a high of 40 in puzzle rush and a 2850 rating in tactics.

 

Why is my tactical rating so high?

I also plan to do thus before I turn 14, which is in 2 months.... Probably won't be able to..

 

RussianHAMMER

If you're good at solving tactical puzzles, but can't put that ability into your actual games, it won't reflect in your rating.

When you're playing you should check your opponent's moves to see if they have tactics - if you don't do this, you won't use your tactical abilities, and you'll still make tactical blunders.

But even someone with poor tactical ability, if they try to check their opponent's responses, at least will spot basic refutations.

Good luck - I was 1400 when I was 13-14, and when I started analyzing my opponent's responses carefully, I went up to 1800, because I stopped blundering. 

Deranged

Your blitz rating is over 1800 and you've barely played any games. I'm sure you're capable of reaching 2000+ rating on this site.

Double0Ninja

Either a sandbagger, a list, or both. Come clean

Rasta_Jay

It's because you are a premium member.. I  Purchased premium a weekaago and have done so much puzzles, my tactic rating went up from 1600s to over 2000 in two days. Puzzle rush from 16 to 25.. personal high..

 Easy to get high tactical rating when you have ample time.. 

ps.. Am not even rated 1000 on here..

wollyhood

The thing is with the tactics, that there is a winning combo; different to whole games. You know there is a stand out play to find whereas in real games you have to create your own.

Sometimes you can win bits of puzzle rush without even knowing all the rules of chess just for anticipating the kinds of things they want you to do, no? Kind of in your peripheral vision you see they want you to move That piece etc... Probably some people with dementia would be much better at tactics than games for instance.

What number of moves can there be up to in 2000 tactics btw?

wollyhood
Double0Ninja wrote:

Either a sandbagger, a list, or both. Come clean

Sorry lol this kid is legit : https://www.centralflchess.org/cfcc-members/

drmrboss

Dude, u still don't hit 2000, cos you still have strategic mistake which is uncommon above 2000+.

Strategic mistake differs from tactical blunders and it is easy to spot in positional evaluation.

In this position  you played Nxe5?? And open files and died.

This position is very quiet. You have no thread. It is better to keep his isolated "d" pawn permanently.

Two strategies,

1. Nb6, Rc8, Nd5 and queen-side push or

2. Re8, Nf8,Ng6,h6 king side push

Double0Ninja

In that case I apologise for trolling your thread, OP. 

 

 

Someone pay for his membership, it is expired. 

 

Good luck Ayush, may you go far. 

Rasta_Jay
wollyhood wrote:

The thing is with the tactics, that there is a winning combo; different to whole games. You know there is a stand out play to find whereas in real games you have to create your own.

Sometimes you can win bits of puzzle rush without even knowing all the rules of chess just for anticipating the kinds of things they want you to do, no? Kind of in your peripheral vision you see they want you to move That piece etc... Probably some people with dementia would be much better at tactics than games for instance.

What number of moves can there be up to in 2000 tactics btw?

 Exactly, in Tactics there's only one winning move.. In real play probably Moore than 10 good moves at some points in the middle game.. 2000 rated tactics don't have more moves than sub 1000 tactics.. It can be any number of moves.. 1 to 4 is the norm

Double0Ninja

10 good moves? I like the way you think. 

RussianHAMMER

The reality is that in most positions, you won't have a quick win ("tactic") available. If you don't, and play without thinking about your opponent, you may get caught with a quick tactic. 

You can be 2800 when looking for winning tactics for yourself, but if you just play moves without considering responses, you'll still blunder and lose yourself.

RichColorado

Your DAILY rating is actually 1295 which includes 40 % TIMEOUT LOSSES . . . I

DENVER

wollyhood

Huh only 1-4! am so amaze. So any pleb has a nearly 1 in a 100 chance of guessing the winner. I assumed they would get massively complex up on Mount Olympus... xD

RussianHAMMER
wollyhood wrote:

Huh only 1-4! am so amaze. So any pleb has a nearly 1 in a 100 chance of guessing the winner. I assumed they would get massively complex up on Mount Olympus... xD

Most "plebs" can get an advantageous position at some point against a considerably stronger opponent.

It's the 20+ moves to convert the advantage into mate that they mess up on.

wollyhood
Double0Ninja wrote:

10 good moves? I like the way you think. 

Yeh like today I had a computer game analysed by a different program that didn't realise how stupid the computer was that I was playing; it told me off for 3 out of my last 4 moves telling me on average that I could have mated in an average of 6 moves, but it only took me 4 ... you have to be a bit Bruce Lee about these things right?

BL4D3RUNN3R

Executing penalties, free kicks and corners well doesn’t make you a good soccer player.

Double0Ninja

Right, like water 

Rasta_Jay
wollyhood wrote:
Double0Ninja wrote:

10 good moves? I like the way you think. 

Yeh like today I had a computer game analysed by a different program that didn't realise how stupid the computer was that I was playing; it told me off for 3 out of my last 4 moves telling me on average that I could have mated in an average of 6 moves, but it only took me 4 ... you have to be a bit Bruce Lee about these things right?

I read it 3 times, still don't undestand what you meant