I have been working my way through another 50 2300-rated problems at CT.
Of those I consider 2 to be difficult to find. The rest is simple once you know it.
I refined my checklist to 37 tactical elements. I could describe all 50 problems with only those 37 elements.
I scored 0% which is both amazing and fantastic.
The amazing part is that the users that have done these exercises scored
about 30%. Of course it are usually the higher rated players that
encounter such high rated problems.
Yet I assume that I don't score in accordance to my rating. That might
have to do with the fact that I maybe have trained too much patterns.
The recognition of patterns is so strong that it is difficult to come up
with something different. But maybe I deceive myself here.
The fantastic part is that it exactly pinpoints why I such at chess. I
can't build a consistent logical reasoning which guides my pattern
recognition. I falsify moves that are good and I don't falsify moves
that are not good. I'm biased towards certain patterns.
Now the problem. The checklist is formulated a bit too general. It doesn't guide my thoughts with enough precision. Besides that it is too difficult to follow the whole checklist once I got distracted by promising looking patterns.
The diagnose of my sucking at chess is perfect.
The remedy still sucks, though.
More Benefits of Studying the Classics
1 hour ago