Recent Posts

I've used this site for a few years and I've definitely had plenty of moments like these. I've even had this feeling during other competitive games. I would want to end on a win rather than a loss and continue to push well past my limit only to suffer the consequences.

My recommendation is to just cut your losses while you still can and just stop for the day. Your brain has a limited amount of resources and you shouldn't keep trying difficult puzzles after your brain is already fried. Even more important than that is tilt just fuels further tilt. A large part of becoming a better player at any competitive sport or game is to not let the tilt get to you. Sometimes you can reset your attitude through some sort of breathing exercise or by focusing on some other activity for a few minutes. At other times, you just need to stop for the day and accept that you were just having an off-day.

Sometimes the puzzles are just hard, sometimes you're not at your peak, and sometimes you just get it wrong. You can't win 100% of the time, and you shouldn't blame yourself if you don't reach the expected percentage of puzzles correct at the difficulty you play at. The goal isn't to increase your rating everyday(even if that would be really cool). The point is to get better through consistent practice because that's actually somewhat sustainable.

Overall, losing is a natural part of any competitive game and accepting that in itself I think makes you a better player, even if your calculation skill doesn't change whatsoever.

Number of active blitz users has been dropping relative to standard users ever since we switched the default from blitz to standard for new users. The blitz problem ratings are very stable (only one rating point change in the average problem rating since this time last year). User blitz ratings are a little less stable with about a 10-15 point change (up) over the last year, but user ratings are inherently more variable as we don't let the RD drop as low for user ratings as we do for problem ratings (mainly to ensure users still get a reasonable amount of reward per problem even when very active). We did see a jump in both user and problem blitz ratings with the influx of new users back at the start of covid and netflix queen's gambit days. We don't currently track long term drift trends for endgame rating types unfortunately (we should).

The difference in old and new site FIDE estimates is just a different regression equation (the newer site will on average be more accurate). We still need to do a recalculation based on the new FIDE ratings, as the current estimate is done on the old rating system, but we are waiitng a few more months for the new FIDE rating changes to stabilise before creating a new regression equation.

I think you are taking a very good approach to focus your training on doing so many tactics to learn good pattern recognition.

At lower ratings and even up to expert, most games are decided by tactics!

The other part of a good training plan is to play games and analyze them to learn from your mistakes. Analysis is particularly effective because not only do you try to understand your mistakes and their cause, but you also practice a bit of everything while doing it (opening, middlegame, tactics, strategy, endgames).

Nice to see another post from you! That looks like a very solid study plan, and I'm looking forward to hearing how you go!

Thanks Richard! 

Is anyone else obsessing over their rating and go on tilt after grinding to reach a certain milestone, only to make 2-3 wrong tactics in a row to have their rating fall back to where it was days ago?

This is what happens to me occasionally, I go on a 4+ problem streak, but then I probably get tired/lose focus and start making some impulsive moves and/or not calculating accurately. Then I get the problem wrong, but I'm tilted because I lost points, and then I want to get them back. Then a vicious cycle starts where I want to get my points back and I continue trying to solve problems without spending much effort, so my rating dips even lower.

Anyone else feeling the same? If so, how do you tackle it?

I'm ~1800 in Standard.

Richard, I have a few questions about the changes to the tactics over the years.

First, I've noticed that the average user count for Blitz tactics has gone down. Has this resulted in a change in tactics ratings to correlate, or is inflation/deflation being controlled? Specifically, I can point to the drop in Endgame Theory players pushing the problem ratings up, and I was wondering if there is a similar phenomenon present.

Second, I've noticed that the Old Stats FIDE Estimate and new FIDE Estimates are different. Is this a result of the new FIDE rating adjustment made, or is a different calculation being made?

Nice to see another post from you! That looks like a very solid study plan, and I'm looking forward to hearing how you go!

Nodes per second isn't an ideal metric for engine strength. For example when AlphaZero was first released, and beat the version of stockfish that was available at the time, it did so with far less nodes per second than stockfish because the superior evaluation allowed it to look at fewer nodes and still be very strong.

I would guess newer versions of stockfish that are using NNUE based eval may also be slower in NPS than older versions, but are also clearly much stronger, although I havent run an NPS test recently to test that.

In terms of our own machines, we have some faster machines than were mentioned in the previous post, although not massively faster, and we also have less of the slower machines in the mix, so on average you have access to more computing power now than in 2018. However as you say, stockfish is already insanely strong compared to human players, and it will be rare to notice the differences. The main advantage of more NPS is that you'll be able to analyse for less time for equally strong results.

I've gone into more detail here, but basically I wonder if a) my custom set set-up makes sense, and b) any suggestions for improvement. My goal, since I am---ahem---very adult, is not to improve my speed, per se (I only play rapid and classical), but to build up my pattern-recognition. So, I created a new merged set comprising 50% each of two sets, one with outcome type set to mate and the other non-mates, and the following settings:

• Blitz Rating type, 1000-1100, 1-2 moves, 100+ total attempts, 4-5 star, winning problems, any color to move, any number of pieces
• Filter: problems I have never solved. Treat loss of rating due to time as wrong. Include unsolved problems, 0-15 secs solve time
• Blitz rating adjustment, sorted (looping), sort by problem rating

(I am using the combination of number of attempts by all users + rating to limit the number of problems to app. 500 each.)

Then I work through the merged set until there are no problems left (in one of the sets, anyway).

If I understand how this is working, as I go through the set, problems are dropped if I solve them in under 15 seconds unless I my time is too slow according to the time adjustment.

Does what I have make sense (I'm usually a relatively bright person, but some of the CT custom set options are still murky)? How might it be improved?

Also, I am wondering if I should also do thematic puzzle sets and, if so, how much of my time should be spent on that, proportionally?

Thanks in advance!

I started with the plan above, but quickly realized the ratings setting was too low even for me, and having only 25% non-mates in the mix wasn't enough. So I created a new merged set comprising 50% each of two sets that only differed in their outcome type:

• Blitz Rating type, 1000-1100, 1-2 moves, 100+ total attempts, 4-5 star, winning problems, any color to move, any number of pieces
• Filter: problems I have never solved. Treat loss of rating due to time as wrong. Include unsolved problems, 0-15 secs solve time
• Blitz rating adjustment, sorted (looping), sort by problem rating

I am using the combination of number of attempts by all users + rating to limit the number of problems to app. 500 each.

This resulted in a merged set of about 1000 problems. I looped through until one of the sets ran out, and am now starting another cycle with a set like the above but with the rating level set to 1100-1150, and the number of attempts adjusted to 30+.

I feel good about this approach to non-thematic training focused on pattern recognition, though I am unsure if, or how much, I should do thematic sets.