Recent Posts

Hi Richard I have two quick questions if you have time:

(1) I've seen very old posts from you explaining that ratings can stagnate because after ~3000 problems solved you tend to get dupes around your platued rating range and the penalty from re-solving correctly lowers the amount you earn for a correct but you still get dinged equally for your fails. Is this still your view? Most of the posts I saw were ~10 yrs old so I wasn't sure if the site/database of problems is still the same or its larger now so the likelihood of dupes is lower until a much higher number of problems.

(2) if I solve a problem correctly in a custom set and then later solve the same problem in a rated set, does the re-solving rating penalty apply, or is it only re-solving multiple times within a given set?

Thank you!

LIREN VS. GUKESH ... Go Gukesh! 

Given you don't have a premium membership, I assume you are just loading them into the PGN Viewer? There is no way to load them that way and have them trained in a sensible manner.

The only way to properly import tactics is to create a book with the PGN holding the tactics, and that requires premium membership. Once the book is created you can then solve the problems using the same method as the chesstempo tactics solving.

Regards,
Richard.

Helllo, I have some tactics which I want to import but it seems like I can simply see the answer in the notation.
Is there a way I can hide it?
TIA

I don't have endless amounts of time, and I believe we can only really internalize so much training per day, so I'm unsure if/how I will work this into my routine.

If/when I do, I suppose I will use an approach similar to Rapid Mixed Training, using tags to create looping sets of problems with a particular theme.

Should this kind of training be higher in my list of priorities?

My plan here is to use the Standard Rated problem set, following IM David Pruess's advice to:

• Pause on each error, figure out the solution and try again, repeating as necessary until I have it.
• Play through the solution three times on the board and then in my head.
• Continue until I've made three errors and then end the session.

I am also committed to:

• Really visualizing all steps of my solution before making my attempt.
• If a response is unexpected, even if my move is right!, "marking it as wrong" at that point by using the "Give Up" button on desktop (or make an intentionally wrong move on the app).

This should take 15-20 minutes at most.

PS. I am considering writing the move sequence down on paper before I enter it. This will help keep me honest, but also give me much needed practice at becoming more nimble with board coordinates. Good idea?

[Set A (Mates) Features]

The preponderance of evidence suggests that rapid tactics training is a sound method for developing important pattern recognition even if one has no plans to play blitz chess (I'm too old, too slow, for that).

• My basic solution, thanks to some forum assistance, is to use custom looped sets that drop problems I get right fast enough (I'm thinking 15 seconds), but consider problems solutions even within 15 seconds as wrong if there is rating loss.
• I saw a suggestion here to compose such sets starting with a rating around 400 points below one's "normal" blitz tactics. If it's too easy, I will work the set down to nothing relatively rapidly. If too hard, I will adjust and try again.
• I did some solving to establish a base blitz rating: ~1300

Set A (Mates) Features

- Rating type: blitz
- Rating range: 900-1000
- Number of moves: 1-2
- Total attempts for all users: 20 or more
- Problem type: winning problems
- Outcome type: only mates
- Quality rating: 4-5
- Color to move: any
- Number of pieces: 1-32 (default)
- Game move number: 1-300 (default)

Set A Previous Attempts

- All problem sets / All Problems
- Match against most recent attempt only: False (not sure about this one)
- Treat loss of rating points due to time as wrong: True
- Shortest solve time: 0-15 seconds
- Include unsolved problems: True
- Use most recent time: False (not sure about this one)
- Days since last seen: 0-370 (default)

Set A Options

- Rating adjustment: blitz
- Selection method: Sorted (looping)
- Sort direction: Ascending
- Sort by: problem rating

(until there is an option for random sorting!)

Set B (Non-Mates)

I read a related suggestion that made sense to me: mix up mating problems with non-mating problems in a 75/25 ratio.  So I created a second set, Set B, that is exactly the same as Set A except the Outcome Type is set to "Only Non-Mates." That resulted in a set of about 700 problems.

Mixed Rapid Training Set (merged)

I used the Merge Sets feature to create a merged set with Set A at 75 percent and Set B at 25 percent.

[I would love suggestions!]

I'm 54 and though I have followed chess for years, and am really into the history and culture of the game, I've actually tried training very little, and playing even less. Until a month or so ago, I probably played a grand total of 100 games in my life, including over the board with friends and online!

For reasons unknown even to myself---especially since I am dealing with brain damage from a series of medical treatments a few years ago---I'm giving a try at "adult improvement," with the luxury of no great ambitions except to enjoy the process. That enjoyment is my primary measure, though I hope it carries over into playing games with a bit less anxiety.

I must admit to some bafflement trying to understand how the settings in custom sets work together, but based on posting questions in the forums (that I am sure are sometimes annoying), and some testing, I think I have a basic plan in place. I would love suggestions!

My plan has three basic parts: rapid thematic training, rapid mixed tactics training, and standard tactics training. I will share each of those parts of the plan as separate posts to make replying with quotes a little less unwieldy.

I think this one is very borderline. Yes, Qf7 is still preferred by stockfish, but the fact that 1.Qe7 was played in the original game, and white won tilts in the disable direction, coupled with the fact it is a relatively high rated problem, so those playing 1.Qe7 may be correctly assessing the won endgame (in the game, black resigned without white further improving material balance from the original position). Having the most common failure move being given a 'winning' eval by stockfish is also not ideal.

On the other hand it IS a long endgame that ignores a more tactical win, and I'd be very surprised if strong players though the endgame after 1.Qe7 was easier than after 1.Qf7, so given the problem still has a relatively high quality rating, and there is no short term improvement in material balance, I'm also inclined to leave this enabled for now (but only just).

@nyutix_
You have a strong argument, but in my analysis your "fact" that 1.Qe7 is preferred by Stockfish is false. I get 1.Qf7 as 4.80 and 1.Qe7 as only 3.23 at depth25 using Stockfish16. At depth34 it is 4.73 vs 3.26. At depth40 4.91 vs 3.53.

I agree with @daniels_ that black is not "fine" after 1.Qe7. White is up an exchange for a pawn.

( ) vs ( )

Date:

Event:

Site:

Round:

Result:

[FEN "5r1k/p5bp/1p2Q1p1/2n5/8/2Bq2P1/KP5P/2R1R3 w - - 1 1" ] 1.Qe7 Qd5+ 2.Kb1 Qf5+ 3.Rc2 Bxc3 4.g4 Qf4 5.Rxc3

I would assert  however that white only has a very favorable and "winnable" long endgame, one that many experts will win most of the time. White is below the usual material balance to be a CT solution and not "clearly winning."

For some other suboptimal first moves, Stockfish16 at depth 30 thinks the eval is increasing up to +3  if white then plays perfectly for the next 15 moves. But the CT FAQs warn against adopting favorable endgames when a tactical solution is better and available.  

Recently, many problems in the 2200-2300 range and above, have been disabled if a nonALT has the CT player up by only one pawn, but that pawn is passed and experts or masters have told CT that they viewed the final position as clearly winning despite the inadequate material balance. This has been going on to improve the satisfaction of experts and masters who are training at blitz on those high level problems. @nyutix_ is astutely citing many of the criteria that go into those decisions.

In this problem, with 1.Qe7, white begins and finishes up an exchange for a pawn, which is never as clear a situation as a single passed pawn.

Furthermore,  as @mateorbust argues, 1.Qe7 did not and will not soon gain any material to improve things from the starting position. 1.Qe7 missed the key tactics. It is harder to justify giving that a "Good move, Try again."

The Correct solution gained an exchange, using Pin and  Weak Bank Rank tactics.

I recommend against disabling this, but I will post this in the forum under "Tactics Problems" and get another opinion from @richard.