Saturday, February 18, 2012

Difference between a sentence and desoxyribonucleic acid

Munich and I try to resolve which range of problems you should choose at CT. We make use of the metaphor of learning a new language.
We agree that the problems rated below 1500 can be compared to the syllables of words.
When I extend the metaphor, I compare 1500-1900 problems with whole words and >1900 with sentences.
Artificial words like desoxyribonucleic acid are to compare with composed problems with artificial clues you won't encounter in real games.

Take a look at the diagram below.

Black to move.
You can find the solution here.

The compounding patterns of the combination pop up easily enough. And I shouldn't be too worried if you need a minute or two for that in stead of 10 seconds.

Here are the patterns:
  • The main weakness of white is the pinned bishop on b4. It calls for an extra attack. For instance with Be7 or Ba5
  • White has a discovered attack with Bf8+.  That helps you to decide between Be7 and Ba5.
  • You can decoy the white king with g4+, hxg4, hxg4+, luring the monarch away from the protection of the white knight, thus creating another target for the black rook.
The words are familiar enough, but now you must make a sentence of it. To make the sentence gramatically correct you must decide about the right order of the combination. Should you start with 1. ... Be7 or 1. ... g4+
Both moves are forcing but one is a win and the other is a draw.

This is what I mean with "adding another element to the equation". You cannot learn anything about grammar or move order with only learning a vocabulary by heart.

When do you know you are ripe for grammar? When you don't improve from learning words anymore. That is why we seem to disagree. Munich still improves from learning more words, I want to learn the grammar. We are both right in our approach. But we have a different goal.

In the end the grammar rules are followed implicit. Just like children learn to use the grammar rules in an implicit way. Even the rules of grammar wil eventually take the form of patterns. But these kind of patterns you will not be able to find in low rated problems.

BTW I prefer the use of the abbreviation DNA ;)


  1. "Munich and I try to resolve which range of problems you should choose at CT."

    Its easy to answer, Munich is continuing his training and you yours for 2(?) 4(?) Months. Then you both check on the improvemt in CT-Fide-Estimate. Now you change and Munich is doing your training while you do Munichs training. Then you both check on the improvemt in CT-Fide-Estimate make a simple calculataion and tell us the result ;)

  2. Well, actually I dont think "my" range is the ideal range. I think I should have taken a range a bit more difficult.
    It is not wrong what tempo points out.
    Too easy wont do the trick.
    Still I think too difficult wont do you a favor, too.
    I am going to learn the sentences with all the grammar stuff, but easy sentences and easy grammar. Because I am only in grammar school and not a Master, yet.

    My son Joey for instance can read simple text. He cant write so good, but even here he showed a lot improvement.
    He is in year 2 now, in the middle of the school year. Shall I tell him: look, I want you to become better in reading and writing. Skip your easy text books, and start serious business. Tomorrow I want you to start reading these books, please:

    This is what Joey needs to read in year 2, isnt it? If he is not going to read this - he will never get better in reading, will he?

  3. @Munich,
    You must be kidding. If you have an estimated FIDE rating of 2000 you can't compare yourself to a 2 year old. Is there anything you didn't understand in all the high rated problems I showed you the past weeks? They are simple in essence and you already admitted that.

    I left out Shakespeare's works by selecting problems that consist of <=4 movers only.

    Is it just addiction to quantity? You already noticed that the quality of the problems you train now is only usefull if you want to become a good blitzplayer.
    Which of course is a legitimate goal, btw.

  4. Yes, it is true. The "difficult" puzzles with 2 or 3 moves - they are simple if you understood them. The underlying patterns are not unknown.

    I guess we discuss two sides of the truth.
    Because the other side is, that there are puzzles such as the last two puzzles I have given you in your last post "Arghh! not the 7 cycles again!"
    There the right order of ideas is not the problem. And we all can do the easy brother with CT Standard rating 1150.
    We just cant do it quickly enough.
    Like explained in my comment there, no need to repeat it here.

    If I am learning a language, and I came in my language book to chapter 10. I could jump to chapter 13 and probably I am still o.k.
    I should not go back to chapter 3, cause it is way too easy. But should I jump right to the last chapter 25? And from there going backwards?

    For chess, I believe the puzzles above our rating should be left for later.
    Because in the chapters 11-15 we will find plenty to learn.
    The most difficult puzzles - they are for training masters (FMs and IMs) to become GM.

    The ideal chapter would probably be chapter 11 to learn. But we dont know which range that presents in analogy to chess puzzles.
    We need to guess a bit. The best range might be a moderate easy range where you can still learn a lot.

    It is by the way a range most people dont look at. Either they think the puzzles need to be as hard as possible, and the others think the puzzles need to be ultra easy to learn clear and simple patterns. Nobody ever is suggesting the intermediate level. But I do now. In fact I opt for the rather easy part of the intermediate. A range where the majority of the Puzzles (first timers) are so difficult for me, that I cant solve within 20 seconds.
    Maybe (to be on the save side): where I cant solve them on average within 25 seconds. Could mean a range of 1550-1650. Not so easy to say. I need to try.

  5. Read this Story:

    The end of that Story: They did burn the Dekan because ... «

    New datas are needed, facts, experiments ... «

    Please dont burn me ;)

    I favor Munichs ideas because:
    Tacticians ( and Chessplayer ) seem to perform the same on easy and on complex problems (if they are within a reasonable range )
    So it should be equal if you improve at easy or at complex tactics. Improvement in one should ( somehow ) "automatic" result in an improvement of the other. ( The statements are questions! ). Now i wonder: how does an improvement in complex problems "create" an improvement in easy problems?
    I think its easy to understand how an improvement in easy tactics results in an improvement in complex tactics. Complex tactics consists of easy tactics. but the other way around.. i dont "see" it.

  6. @Aox,
    I analyzed where I spilled my points at Tata. It turned out that I made mistakes in my grammar. Hence I try to master grammar. Why should it have an effect on my vocabulary?

    Why do you think that studying a vocabulary should have an effect on anyone's grammar?

    I don't improve from learning more words any longer. Hence I change to grammar.

  7. How do you learn grammar? Same as vocabulary, you start with easy and common and expand to complicated and not that common.

    And compicated texts do have difficult words AND complicated grammar

    And where the hack stops vocabulary and where does Grammar starts. until 1500 is vocabulary and with 2200 starts grammar?

    No, before you may start translating Imanuel Kants to chinese, i suggest to transalte sentences like "The ball is red" first.

    If you can do sentences like that without to much thinking, then you may translate sentences with one or two words more...

  8. Why do you keep insisting that those high rated problems are too difficult? With a little work they are quite understandable. Or do you find the examples of those high rated problems on my blog difficult? I can hardly belief that.

  9. With a little work Kant is quite understandable too ;-)
    You have been unable to understand ( =solve ) these problems, thats the reason you did chose to learn them, they are rated higher than you.
    As i said, we need do some experiments to be able to decide whats better, learning "hard" or learning "easy".

    My last post was not that much about "your problems are to complicated to understand" but about "easy problems would be just words and complicated problems would be only grammar" :

    You said: "Why do you think that studying a vocabulary should have an effect on anyone's grammar?

    I don't improve from learning more words any longer. Hence I change to grammar."

    What i did try to say:
    Every problem has "words and grammar". There is no magic rating of a problem where suddenly grammar happens.

    You may learn grammar from easier
    problems too.

    What i want to say: That you want to learn grammar dont make it necessary to learn only higher rated problems than Munich. There is no real difference between learning words or learning grammar. The method might be about the same.

  10. This post was an attempt to show that there is something in high rated problems that you will not or hardly find in lower rated problems.

    It has something to do with deciding between move orders.

    Pattern = word
    Move order = grammar

    But please don't take it too literally.

  11. I thought a bit about getting the right ideas into the right order.
    I can see, that this is the main task in difficult puzzles.
    But can it really be trained?

    The best I can do is to get a very clear picture about what I am doing.
    What happens if I screw the right order up? --> I fail the puzzle.
    I fail it, because I have not seen an inbetween move of the opponent. If the right order is important, then there are anti-tactic moves of the opponent that I missed.
    And why did I miss the anti-tactic?
    Well - here we go back to easy tactics again, somehow.
    With my two examples with the easy and the difficult brother, I have shown, that on move 3 in the search tree we only look a few seconds on the position to judge it. On move 3 in the search tree, we have a poor strengh of 1150 in Standard rating, and about 1350 measured in Blitz rating.

    The right order has to do with that a lot. Because the follow-up pattern is judged by us only for a few seconds.

    I guess, that the best way to train a difficult puzzle is to know the underlying patterns inside out.
    In your grammar-puzzle example, it is acutally exactly what aox hypothesis suggests:
    Difficult puzzles are made of more patterns than simple puzzles.
    This hypothesis is not valid for my example with the easy and the difficult brother. For the brothers, they both have the same idea, so it the same pattern. The difficult brother does not have more patterns. Nevertheless, even for the difficult brother it is very helpful to know the easy brother inside out (to be able to solve it within a few seconds, or at least to sense the pattern within few seconds).

    We have found 2 kinds of puzzles.
    The brohter puzzles, and the grammar puzzles made of several patterns which you need to be able to know very well or you miss the anti-tactics.

    But now I am aware of a 3rd and a 4th kind of puzzle:
    Uri blass mentioned the 3rd kind.
    These are puzzles where you need to evaluate the position at the end. Is it won? Are 1.75+ pawn units met? The end position is sometimes a won ending with just one pawn more.
    For this kind, Patternrecognition is less important, and more knowledge about endgames is needed.

    And there is even a 4th kind of puzzle:
    Difficult patterns, that consist of 1 pattern. This one pattern you wont find in an easy puzzle. Often these patterns are quite seldom to be seen, which explains their high rating. But they are kind of there own pattern, where I cant find a simple variation of it in the easy range.

    The grammar and the brother puzzles: here the training of easy puzzles should be beneficial.
    But for the 3rd kind - there is nothing you can achieve with training tactics. You need different knowledge. Tactics is not everything.
    For the 4th kind: here you need to search these patterns in the difficult range, because in the easy range they dont exist.
    But they are seldom. I can leave them for later, when I achieved my IM Titel.

  12. Different Subject -->
    I have doubts DLM did make such a great progress in such a short time.

    I believe he was allready a good player and became strong when he was a child. He just did not play tournament games.
    My school mate Patrick does not take part in tournaments, too. With him and two other friends we played in the school-team-championship, where we played long tournament games, but they were not rated.
    We also played a lot rapid tournaments.
    Patrick started playing chess as a child, and 15 years ago we went to a rapid tournament where he got 3rd place, leaving some strong players behind him. I can just guess his strength but estimate it around 2100 elo?
    He is not listed anywhere. If he was going to start tounament games, then he would have the initial score of a beginner, if he plays against beginners. There is also a seducing reason to understate your true strength: there are prizes for best players below 1700 or below 1400.

    DLMs progress over 2 years is better than any other player, such as Judith, Garry, or Magnus.
    I acutally know of nobody with such a huge rating increase. If it was possible, then there must have been players who instinctively did right and optimal training methods.

    there is actually guy, that has shown amazing progress over the last years, despite he allready was a young adult:
    Aronian Levon.
    Look at his rating progress! He is now approximately 30 years old. Not so young for such an impressive elo run over the last 10 years as an adult.

  13. Me again, sorry for writing so often in a row. I hope it is of interest, though.
    Here for the brother collection (they are not from the same game):

    This is the easy brother with 1315 CT Blitz rating:

    And this is the difficult brother with 1435 Blitz rating (not a huge difference, but 120 rating points is at least something):

    Again my question: if you can do the easy brother very quickly, how much time would you need to solve the difficult brother?
    I needed 6 and 14 seconds respectivly.

    Both have the distraction-tag.
    If somebody does tag-sorted sets, sorted, and chosing a range of 1300-1475 then he would come across both puzzles. And some more with the same pattern.
    this is why I believe tag-sorted sets are good. They let you show more similar puzzles within short time, so in that way you memorize the pattern better.

  14. For the first time, I read something substantial here other than Tempo's thoughts. Munich, good thinking and you are kinda on the right track.

  15. @Munich,
    I quite agree with doing tag-sorted problemsets.

  16. Thanks anonymous for your words.

    Uri Blass just gave me a puzzle pair from the 4th kind:
    The difficult puzzles, that have patterns you wont find in the easy range. If you know the pattern, then the puzzle is easy.
    But most people dont know it, and hence this pattern is so high rated.
    They dont know it, because this pattern is seldomly happening in everyday games.

    Here is the basic pattern, the "easy" brother (it is rated 2102 CT Blitzrating!)

    Why do I call a 2102 rated puzzle "easy"? Well if you know this "easy" 2102 rated puzzle, then you can solve the difficult brother quite easily, dont you? Here is the difficult brother (rated 2253 in CT Blitzrating):

    I dont think that an even more simple version exist for the easy brother.
    I have not seen anything similar in the range 1150-1475, and as some of you know, I did tons of repetitions in the range 1150-1475. So I would know if like this would exist. It does not. Conclusion: There are patterns out there, that we dont know. They only exist in the difficult range above 2000 in rating in the CT puzzle universum.
    But - they are not very common. I leave them for later, as soon as I become a Master.

  17. The themes are:
    1. Attack a piece which has no place to go.
    2. Attack the defender

    Both are common themes. But maybe not in combination. Both problems took me about 30 seconds.

    Of course doing the easy one first made the second one easy too.

    We seem to have a difference in approach. You say you can't do high rated problems since you are not a master while I reason the other way around: I must learn these problems in order to become a master.

  18. If you solve tactics of your level, then about 50% of them you dont solve and these problems are more common. But as i said, its easy to tell if Tempos Method works, just look at tempos Fide Elo Estimate, preferably at CT-Blitz

  19. I dont think there is anything wrong with training the 4th kind of puzzles (The high rated puzzles with typical patterns which can be only found in the high range.)
    They are statistically less often to happen in your games, but on the other hand, there are not so many puzzles (in number) to be trained.

    The only trouble I have: I cant extract the 4th kind of puzzles from the other 3 kinds of puzzles. However, puzzles from the easy range should enable me to at least solve the 1st kind (easy brother puzzles) so I can solve the 1st kind in a bit higher range also with easy (difficult brother puzzles).
    It also might help me in solving the grammar puzzles better, which is the 2nd kind, because getting the right order is also dependend how "sharp" my view is in my search tree. My elo strength decades rapidly the deeper I am in the search tree (proof: see brother puzzles of the 1st kind).

    So it is a good idea to tacle the 4th kind later. Because then I can do the 1st and probably 2nd kind with easy by then, and this is almost as good as extracting the 4th kind of puzzles.
    Only the 3rd kind - here I can do nothing but to try to improve in my positional judgement. Maybe solving a lot of the 3rd kind might eventually help, too.
    The 3rd kind are typically endgames at the resulting position: is it won? Do I meet the required +1.75? Sometimes not so easy to tell if you are just a knight and a bishop against a rook up.
    Or just 1 pawn up in an endgame with 2 bare kings.

    @Aox mentioned it, and all who are interested can look at my CT Blitz rating graph improvement.
    Follow the link or click on my name of this post here, then you get to my stats. click there on the register card "tactic stats" and then you will see my blitz rating graph and how I improved over time. I am still improving, there is no plateauing effect. It also translates into my games (here I cant show you a prove, but is probably good to hear, isnt it?)

  20. Do you guys really believe that it is possible to become good at high-rated puzzles without becoming good at the low rated puzzles as a side-effect?

  21. As far as i see, its not possible to become better in high rated puzzles and not in low rated puzzles. The paper in my last blog says, that the skill in chess is dominated by fast mechanisms liker recognition and not that much by slow mechanisms as searching. Thats the reason why i think your new method might not work. I dont see how your method can improve your skore at low rated puzzles. I dont see how it improves your fast mechanisms. It might be possible, but i dont see it/how. Well and any evidence that there is an improvement is missing too.

  22. Sorry, I forgot to insert my link to my blitz rating graph:

    We spoke and hence found another person, who is 38 years old and showed pretty good improvement. Here is our short conversation with him:;msg29487#msg29487

    And this is his blitz rating graph:

    He did tag sorted easy puzzles like me in the beginning, which probably helped him later when he did not do it anymore with tag-sorting but only Blitz on easy mode.
    By the way, I stopped doing tag sorted puzzles for 2 weeks now, because I know them roughly (have seen each puzzle at least 5 times, but often more often). That is why I started doing them all together in a big set, and only seperated by "non mates" and "check mates".

    Vitoc73 success is good to hear for me, and things are not so much different to my training.

    Because of Aoxomoxoas found study, I believe now, that only an increase in speed will help us to become better. I guess, that if I repeat puzzles in the easy range, this will help me to pick up speed.
    Anyway, with vitoc73 that makes now 2 of us who became considerably better with doing tons of easy puzzles, tag-sorted. But I would not do too easy puzzle which you can already do quick, but rather puzzles that are easy but where you can considerably improve in speed (puzzles you often cant solve within 20 seconds, and trying to repeat them so often until you memorized each tactic, hence a solving time should be under 10 seconds, and often it is below 7 seconds.)

  23. We undoubtedly agree about the importance of speedy skills (like recognition) as the main source of chess skill and the relative unimportance of slow skills (like searching or thinking). I even called it the "supertrick".

    What we don't agree about is how to achieve that speed. You guys advocate high volumes of low level problems at high speed and I deny that for the very simple reason that I have tried that extensively and failed.

    In stead of that I advocate to use high quality problems at a slow pace in low quantities.

    At the same time it has become clear that for every argument we can find two counter-arguments so chances that we come to agreement any time soon by spewing arguments I consider to be nill. Don't you agree?:)

    The only proof that my method works that I am willing to accept is when it has a considerable effect on my real rating within a reasonable time. Considerable being 200 and reasonable being 1.5 years. I go for that!

  24. "that I have tried that extensively and failed."

    No, you did not do that.
    You forgot to repeat what you learned. Sure, you went 7 times through the whole set, but the set was something like 10000 puzzles in size?
    That means, your repetition started much too late. By the time you went over the same puzzle again, you allready have forgotten about it, so you could not get better.
    Also, you did not sort them by tags at CTS. While I and vitoc73 did that. The difference is, that we saw more similar patterns more often.
    Now that vitoc73 and I know these patterns (learned them), we could concentrate on retrieving them faster from our memory, gaining speed. But before you even can get there, you must have learned the puzzles first. And you never came to that step. you never learned your super-size set. The patterns within this set came way to late for repetition.
    And did you actually repeat your fails? I very much doubt that.
    In CTS you fail or you dont fail, but it simply continues to serve you the next puzzle.
    So actually, you missed both vital points:
    a) add intelligence
    b) automate that.

    You tried b when a was not ready. and even on b it makes sense to concentrate on your fails.

    The range probably does not matter so much. I like the idea to go from the easy to the complex. But I could well imagine that you will improve as long as you stick to point a) and b).

    For the ultra easy range, this does not make sense to me at all. We can do them allready very fast, it is more like you said before: we automate our stupidy.
    It is also not such a good idea to take the standard rating as a gauge if you have the blitz rating available as well. The rating is just more accurate to judge if it is an easy or a difficult level.
    I noticed you always refer to standard ratings at CT, but this is simply a bad habit.

    I guess you discovered actually everything. Because my success is a result from your ideas. And later Aox ideas of course, whom I found because of your blog.
    Strange somehow, that I am going to become better, while the master refuses his own ideas.
    However, the guidance training is a good training too. I just have the feeling, that it is too advanced for the moment. You havent reached expert level and lack a huge knowlede in the middle and easy range.

  25. For obvious reasons, both approach are flawed. The main proponent himself petered out around 1950 elo.
    To this day,seemingly the only method Tempo did not try with tactical exercises is solving them upside down.


  26. Anonymous, you jump a little with your thoughts and thus I have a bit trouble in interpreting your comment. Who is the main proponent? DLM?
    And with both appoaches do you mean? Cant be mine, because that works for 2 people now, and I only know of 2 people who do this kind of training: Vitoc73 and me.

    here vitoc73 stats (look at the blitz rating graph):

    and my stats:

  27. Showing that page with the rating, is like showing to me that you run 100m under 9 sec, therefore you are the best football player. No, you run the 100m pretty fast. I was talking about dlm. I don't get what impression you wanted to make with the graphs, it seems to me you plateau like hell. I also hope you don't suggest that chesstempo ratings have too many connections with ODB play, because that is blatantly false just look at the top scores. A mere FM is leading with 2600 and an IM is 6th.
    So, if you throw a brick in a tournament hall there is a good chance it hits an FM.
    You can find another fm at place 30, an IM again at 53 an fm at 85.

    You'd think +400-500 elo tactical difference is enough to claim absolute superiority over an IM if you are and FM.....or over a fellow fm :D :D

    I submit my hypothesis. Playing chess well != chesstempo results.
    Running well does not make a great football player it is just a requisite. You can be the best player on the playground if you run well though, that is where you made this little error in your thinking. You play well around the kids, that is not a straight road to play in real madrid. You try to force a one dimensional training on one of the most complex games ever known to mankind.
    If you all wouldn't be so invested emotionally, you'd see it. Don't tell me I haven't told you :D Btw, I won't gonna debate this too much. One thing I learned from Tempo, is just letting it slide.


  28. I wanted to give the impression, that I improved. Since it is Blitz mode rating, improvement over more time consumption is not possible. I improved. If I look at vitoc73 or my graph, I would not say that I or vitoc73 plateau.
    It isnt such a great improvement though, but at least it is an improvement. About a year ago my old peak was at 1854. In February I reached 1900. It is not much, but it is significant: I reached many times a rating, that was significiantly over my old peak.

    We all can improve in CT Standard rating by simply using more time.
    But in Blitz rating this is not so.
    "Blitz" is actually a misleading word, it only means, that it takes solving time into account.

    The idea is: if we cant achieve the tactical ability of a master player, then we will never be able to play like a master player.
    Sure, tactic is not everything, but everything is nothing without tactics.

    I need to believe vitoc73s success. But why should I not believe it? Since we did a similar training, his results make sense.

    I just found another guy who does a similar rating. Well, not that similar, but the 2 main points are met: add intelligence and then automate it through repetition.
    His results dont look significiant to me. But at least, he just achieved a new old time high.
    If we just try again and again, we always should achieve ATHs if we just try long enough. Nevertheless, even if his rating does not look so convincing, it does not prove the opposite. It is just not significiant enough. But he did not train too long, too.
    Here he is (I keep watching him over time):

    One guy is missing, but he did not follow the repetition aspect until recently. Before he repeated to seldom and not much.
    Here I present Aox Blitz rating graph. I hope he will show an improvement with his new adopted training:

    Last thought:
    Only if you are a paying member at CT you can see the full history. I think you are not a member, and hence cant see all of it. That explains why you only see a plateau. But over more than a year you would see a direction of the graph leading up.

    Very last thought: I believe DLM was a cheater, yes. Noone, not even magnus not kasparov achieved such an impressive gain even though they improved a lot. But they hardly achieved an improvement of more than 200 in a good year. DLMs success is way to big, and his method was copied several times - no one could achieve what he claims. I have at least vitoc73 at my side. My 7 year old son, too, but then again, all children improve. With him I can only see, that he hardly works a lot on chess, and still he is improving a lot. His performance is very unsteady, though. Sometimes he really plays amazing (and I think: "this is unbelievable!"), and sometimes he falls back to really low level (and again I think: "This is unbelievable!").

  29. It is not the question of improving, because similar to a football player, if he does sprint exercises, his overall play will be better. I'm not saying you should not do tactical training, it is a must for every football player :) I skipped your friend's graph entirely you can't compare two chess player like that. He will plateau I can assure you. What the hell I give you my word. There are guys who easily reach 1800 without opening a book or doing any relevant or specialized tactical training. Does that mean you should not do it until you reach 1800 as well? No. Also some football player run fast naturally without specialized training, and when they go to sprint practice, they improve. Does it mean football is about sprinting and he should concentrate on sprinting exclusively? No.

    Btw I'm using football examples because you are german and tempo is dutch, somehow I hope I can reach a basic layer of -may I say- genetic understanding, I mean you two are the sons of great ball playing nations. Remember Klinsmann and van Basten? Think about them :D

  30. Ja, und

    :D :D

  31. @Munich

    I do improve in Tactics but it dont show at the CT-Statistic. I improve on firstimer and "without dublicate reward reduction".
    I download my "history" (thats a feature for premium members). Then i calculate a rating on the problems i never saw before. There i can see my improvement without the "Duplicate Rating Reduction". By Richards "reduction" my CT-Rating does have now a handicap of more than 50% at average!.
    My rating without duplicate rating reduction would be 2042 (at this moment) my rating on problems i never saw before is 1930 (at this moment).
    The only realistic chance i have to improve at CT-Blitz-Statistic is, to do that many problems, that my rating reduction reach the minimum possible.

    Dont get angry about Mr. Z . His statistic is simply zero, there is none. Its always easy to nagg about others without showing how to do better.

    Of couse, an improvement in CT-ratings dont necessary leads to an improvement in OTB-chess. But if you are unable to improve in tactics, then its impossible to reach a "high" level in OTB.

    If you cant sprint at all and you cant improve in sprinting then you never become a player like Klinsman or van Basten. ( you will never come close to the ball ;-)

  32. Dont get angry about Mr. Z . His statistic is simply zero, there is none.

    O, I have graphs too, don't you worry about it.

    I played cumulatively less than 19 hours, and hm around 250 elo improvement out of nothing?
    I'm gonna write a book, you can contact my sales team about preordering. Its title gonna be "250 ELO in 19 hours - my journey of improvement with real graphs"

    Its always easy to nagg about others without showing how to do better.

    Yea, there are some things that are harder, especially for me. Speaking about improvement without understanding and demonstration.
    Debating fine points while doctoring data.
    Missing or ignoring key points in other peoples arguments while debating passive aggressively.

    "If you cant sprint at all and you cant improve in sprinting then you never become a player like Klinsman or van Basten."

    Who'd think that? Oh, that was me, right.

    ... if he does sprint exercises, his overall play will be better. I'm not saying you should not do tactical training, it is a must for every football player :)


    Interesting Statistc
    Without any name.. its mine.
    We need a link like:

  34. Interesting Statistc
    Without any name.. its mine.

    Okay, at this point, this became pathetic, I don't lower myself anymore. You offered nothing for the second time. user zb001.

  35. So the link with the statisic of Mr z. is

    Its a statistic in Standard. 289 Problems solved. Rating now 1744.

    From an older post

    Anonymous said...

    For obvious reasons, both approach are flawed. The main proponent himself petered out around 1950 elo.

    If this would be a serious argument, how should we rate the opinion of a 1744 who is already on the way down?


    But let me try to be serious:
    you where just thinking longer. At standard, there is no timecontrol, your rating will raise anyway if you are willing to think longer at problems. Uri-blass, Empirical rabbit and i did try to calculate the factor how much someone does improve, if he is willing to spend more time on a problem. You will gain 120-200 Points by doubling the time. Its easy, i did reach 2200 in standard by thinking longer.

    I did improve the first ~2000 problems. To improve after solving 2000-4000 problems, using the same amount of thinking-time, thats complicated.