Monday, May 29, 2006

Slightly less bad

Today I did another 350 problems at CTS.
Maybe GK is right and I have to warm up a little.
My rating increased from 1470 to 1490.
Except for 2 or 3 all problems looked simple.

Update.
1500
There is something different.
I don't have to think.
Just to look.

3 comments:

  1. Tempo,

    I find I go in "runs" on CTS. I'll have a good run when it seems like I see every tactic immediately, almost like it jumps off the screen at me. Then I'll start to miss obvious things and know as soon as I make the move that it was wrong. I've had my rating change by 30-40 points in the space of 50 problems when this happens.

    Does anybody else see this effect?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fine to see you back again. So am I, but not on CTS at the moment, because I think that I must do it the slow way, studying targetology.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Regarding mousetrapper's post and in particular, regarding his choice of using the unfamiliar word, "targetology", I shall call in aid from one of the leading columns of The Times to help us realize the bottom line, ie. that we don't really understand what mousetrapper said. Here is a quote from The Times :

    "Targetology: at precisely what stage the word 'target' infiltrated, under cover of more noticeably luxuriant verbiage, past the pickets of the purists to seize the commanding position in our vocabulary which it now holds, none, probably, can say for certain. Students of jargon, a necessarily morbid class, may be able to explain how a word which originally meant 'a light round shield or buckler' has come to signify the quantitative object of an industrial plan. The first stage of this transition- to 'something aimed at or to be aimed at' -is easy enough to follow; most of us, at some stage in our careers, have discharged missiles or projectiles at 'a shield-like structure marked with concentric circles'. It is, as a matter of fact, our personal experience of targets which make their sudden appearance on the plane of economic theory so puzzling in some of its aspects.

    "When, for instance, Mr. N speaks, as he is apparently obliged to, of the 'coal target', we know roughly what he means. For a moment's thought convinces us that the relation between coal and the coal target cannot be the same as the relation between a rifle and a rifle target. But he gets us into deeper water when he talks about the 'overall coal target', for, while the economist in us instantly visualizes something very large indeed, the marksman can hardly refrain from recalling that the bigger a target was, the easier it was to hit. Still more disconcerting and indeed alarming is the fact that neither Mr. X nor anyone on his level seems to entertain the faintest hope of actually hitting their targets, even when these are overall or even global ones. In their most optimistic moods they speak of 'reaching' or 'attaining' the target, an achievement which, since the bow and arrow went out of use, has never been rated very high; nothing in our own experience of musketry suggests that shots which got as far as the mark did any good if they were also wide of it."

    ReplyDelete