Right, I guess I didn't explain it well enough. Rest assured that people have spent a long time considering rating systems like this. I don't see what should be so hard about this.īecause you are saying stuff that sounds qualitatively nice but doesn't make any sense mathematically. Additionally tactics problems can be gamed/cheated a lot easier than chess games- which would lead to a lot of people artificially inflating their classic rating. Some are comparitively better or worse at tactics. Chief among them is that not everyone who is equally skilled at chess is also equally skilled at tactics. If you mean to include the tactics problems' ratings into, say, the classical rating pool, then that would lead to a whole host of other issues. The problems themselves are considered players in the pool of tactics players. Do you mean to initially give a problem a rating that is equal to, say, the blitz rating of the first person that solves it? The ratings of tactics problems also change every time someone wins or fails the tactic given the same exact formula for the other game modes so its not like they are a static thing. Like give tactics problems their rating based on the actual game ratings of players who solve or fail to solve the problem. In fact the conversion function won't even be injective because two people of different blitz ratings might be equally skilled at the tactics trainer. If you have two different pools of players (not everone who plays blitz also does tactics and vica-versa, so you necessarily have two different pools) then the entire rating spectrum will be different, and there will almost certainly be a nonlinear conversion between them. This is because the ratings are only defined relative to other ratings. The way that Elo and Glicko works is entirely dependent upon the pool of players. What does this mean? What you are saying doesn't make any sense mathematically. one would think they could normalize their tactics trainer off of the regular rating system right? And wouldn't this just make more sense and be more convenient? Aside from that, look for positional moves like a good outpost for your knight, doubling up or aiming your rooks, trading a bad piece of yours for a good piece from your opponent, getting your pieces more active, going for a pawn break, opening a file, making moves that accomplish more than one thing and are not a cheap, easily detectable threat, etc. If you don't see an immediate tactical opportunity like a fork in one move or a few checks allowing you to eventually skewer a piece for example, then look for ways to work the position into a tactical one.
There is a weak point in your opponent's position or an opportunity for a tactic (this is why you do tactics puzzles!). I am finding I am solid in opening, at least for my level, but I can slip in the middlegame or the transition to the endgame where more precision is necessary.Īs far as plan development goes, a few pointers: Sometimes a plan is very obvious.
I also have a pretty high (while still provisional) rating in correspondence games. Whereas I play 15 minute games and there tends to be a moment where I think for a few minutes and just force myself to play. I have taken upwards of 10-15 minutes on a puzzle because I prefer to get them right as opposed to throwing up a good guess. Heh I'm ~1300 classical on lichess and ~2100 in the tactics trainer. Please continue to give us your feedback and suggestions on how we can help make /r/chess better for everyone. Use the message the moderators link if your posts or comments don't appear, or for help with any administrative matters. Twitter/Facebook posts must contain a direct link to the tweet/post, and include the author's nameĬhess Spoiler format for problem answers etc., Instructions for /r/chess PGN addon ( Chrome, Firefox)ĭon’t engage in abusive, discriminatory, or bigoted behavior.ĭon't ask for advice about ongoing games.ĭon’t spoil tournament results in submission titlesĭo not use /r/chess exclusively to promote your own content. News Puzzles Games Strategy Twitch Other Resources
0 kommentar(er)
