Recent Posts

Probably easiest to just disable this one, given the closeless of the dominant failure move to the correct move in eval, even though there is the one pawn compenstaion for the exchange, I think failing these type of moves when the deeper stockfish eval is so close to best move is unfortunate.

@jyrki,
You are right that 2.c8=Q will likely win. But that line is a full pawn worse that the solution. Instead of a full exchange, white is only up an exchange-for-a-pawn, which is typically not an ALT.

And that extra pawn in the solution is on the penultimate rank. So with some good advanced pawn tactics, black will lose a bishop taking the promoted pawn. So the variation you cite is really a piece worse than the solution.

On move 2, many moves are very favorable, up an exchange for a pawn, which is likely winning. Stockfish16, playing perfectly for 30 ply and beyond in a long endgame, predicts a +4 eval. But the material balance is not good enough for an ALT per CT's traditional assessment. FAQs warn about depending on long endgames to achieve a clearly winning advantage. Tactics training is about finding short term material gains.

( ) vs ( )

Date:

Event:

Site:

Round:

Result:

[FEN "2b5/1rP1kppp/3rp3/p1N5/8/6P1/Pn3P1P/1RR3K1 w - - 0 1"]1.Nxb7 Bxb7 2.Rxb2  { Correct, up a full exchange. }

( ) vs ( )

Date:

Event:

Site:

Round:

Result:

[FEN "2b5/1rP1kppp/3rp3/p1N5/8/6P1/Pn3P1P/1RR3K1 w - - 0 1"]1.Nxb7 Bxb7 2.c8=Q  { !? non-ALT with an eval that keeps increasing with depth, reaching +4.03 at depth29 with Stockfish16 } Bxc8 3.Rxc8

@jyrki, What are your thoughts about the threshold CT has historically used? Should problems like this be disabled? Why?

Side point:
The problem cannot continue beyond move 2 because in the solution variation, many moves by white are completely winning. The advantage is not just an exchange, it is a very robust, error-tolerant +4.5 eval with many winning continuations.

@richard,
The counterargument is that SF reaches a +3.9 eval for 2.c8=Q at depth of only 20, and this is, as @jyrki points out, almost equal in eval to the 4.5 of the solution.

Is that too close to be a valid problem? Toga's eval for 2.c8=Q is +1.28/depth17 partly because move 4 is suboptimal.

This is a 1132 standard, 1457 blitz rated problem. OTB, the 2500-rated white played the solution 2.Rxb2 and maintained the promotion threat to strategically win the game. But Stockfish16 at depth18 has 2.Rxb2 as +4.16 and 2.c8=Q as 3.80. It is not ideal to have a nonALT dominant error with a +3.80 eval that is only 0.36 less than the solution.

( ) vs ( )

Date:

Event:

Site:

Round:

Result:

[FEN "2b5/1rP1kppp/3rp3/p1N5/8/6P1/Pn3P1P/1RR3K1 w - - 0 1"]1.Nxb7 Bxb7 2.c8=Q  { !? harsh non-ALT } Bxc8 3.Rxc8  { up only exchange for pawn } Rd2 4.Ra8  { Toga's weaker choice }  ( 4.Rbc1  { Stockfish16 better choice, eval 3.69/depth20 } Rd5 5.R1c7+ Kd6 6.Rxf7 Rd1+ 7.Kg2 Nd3 8.Rxg7 Rd2 9.Re8 Kc6 10.Rf8 Rxa2 11.Rxh7  { up an exchange and a pawn }  ) a4 5.Ra7+ Kf6 6.Rc1 Nd3 7.Rcc7 Rxa2 8.Rxf7+ Ke5 9.Ra5+ Kd6 10.Rxg7 Nxf2 11.Rxh7

A24 is making a movie about the Carlsen-Niemann incident in 2022

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!