| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Beautiful tactics exercises!! tactics #1349 tactics #12838 tactics #13257 tactics #23851 tactics #18323
|
||
|
Used the wrong rook lift... I'll try the other four later, I have to go now... |
||
|
I got 3... Nice ones, though! |
||
|
baronderkilt 30-Aug-10, 15:02 |
Tactical exercises are Dangerous ... That first one mentioned ... I'm going to play that second best move Everytime, as soon as seeing it mates or his house falls down. And it took 30 years of tournaments to teach myself NOT TO look for moves like the 'right one', taking another 20 mins off my clock~! Should I go back now!?? After it took this long to learn 30 good moves defeats 28 great moves and two lemons everytime, especially if the lemon is Fallen Flag, lol. This all has something to do with Karmic payback ... im sure |
||
|
But seriously... Mind you: if I could eliminate the stupid short-range overights that plague my efforts so far, I might have more reason to ask that question. I'm also finding that some exercises do not lend themselves well to the "OTB" approach I have favoured so far. The bad part? It takes about a minute to set up the chessboard. .. |
||
|
|
||
|
A question about this one... [might want to try it out yourself before I say the answer... ] I managed to successfully complete this puzzle... but what if the bishop moved instead of the rook? [to avoid the queen/rook attack] |
||
|
maybe for this... ? 2. Kxc2 Qxc4 3. Rd4 I sometimes come to puzzles like that one, where I fail and looking through the continuation I still don't know why my solution hasn't been that good. |
||
|
but that wasn't what I meant... I mean that after the right move from Black (Re4) what's stopping the bishop from moving away to f7 or g8? |
||
|
I sometimes wonder as well Maybe sometimes there are several moves of the same strength the opponent can play and off-course only one is used in the tactic. But if so they might want to tell you about it while doing the tactic, not? Anyway ... no matter what .. it was a great improvement, again! |
||
|
My heart aches and Recently I found in an other chess site this solution to this evaluation problem: "XX was a good move but not the computers first choice. Please try again." So you are not instantly punished if your move differs from computers choice. I dont know how difficult this kind of alternative is to accomplish but at least here is something to consider. |
||
|
|
||
|
There is no guessing in Chess Tactics |
||
|
But I do think there might be a problem... Now, that is very well, but it often seems to me that the rewards for success and penalties for failure are not commensurate with the degree of difficulty of the exercise. The problem might be rated - to take a number at random - 1450, yet the degree of difficulty feels a lot higher. Were the exercise actually broken up into its separate elements, each rated at 1450, and with rewards and penalties applying to each, that would be another thing entirely. I suspect that heinzkat has had much the same experience as my disastrous run a day or two ago, when I got through several moves of the exercise, but failed to find the mate (true, some of those were so short range, I deserved the kicking). Now, I never, ever, look for a mate in 6 or a mate in 9. I look for a winning continuation, and if thus I find the forced mate, well and good. It often happens that way. But if I find an absolute cast iron 100% guaranteed win, I will look no further. That's in actual play. I am reminded of a story told against one of my heroes, Paul Keres, who, having found 5 possible ways to win a game, chose the 6th. He didn't win, of course. In my (personal) view, the exercise should end with the immediate tactical point (which, be it noted, many do); or else, if the position comprises more than one 'chapter', that it be broken up into those chapters, with rewards and penalties awarded according. So Exercise #xyz contains 3 chapters: [1] the tactical shot to win the queen; [2] establishing a zugzwang; [3] forcing the mate. It is rated 1450; my rating, coincidentally, is 1450. It 'get' part 1 and part 2, but miss the mate. That +10 to my rating for each of the successful parts; -10 for the miss. Is such a system reasonable, or even feasible? I don't know. One further comment I wish to make. I began these exercises with an OTB approach. It won't do. I have found that many of these exercises require the assistance of an analysis board (on screen, or my trusty magnetic set that I keep by me). That makes some difference (as you can tell by the problems I spent 4 minutes and 15 seconds on)... Even then, there's no guarantee that your choice from a range of equally promising looking moves will be the one to secure the mate in 6. Not unless you're prepared to spend a heap more time than I am. I will be in no all-fired hurry to repeat that horrible 3-hour session I had the other day... |
||
|
baronderkilt 01-Sep-10, 15:57 |
GK ... I have to go with HK on this , partly ... I think part of what we need to know then, is (1) what is the length of the Horizon, for instance. Or is it simply calculating to a certain "score" of being ahead? (That seems not). Or (2) At what point will it "shut off" additional attempts to gain more? Certain score? Certain percentage of score ahead compared to value of material remaining on the board? Can we get more of that type info? Here is a for instance of the ambiguity we face solving ... Suppose I find a line winning a piece in 3 moves. But there is an alternate line of different first move that wins 3 pawns in 5 moves, but the first line picks another p at move 9. But the second line got a 4th pawn at move 7. Now I've got a position at move 9 to keep on looking at both variation on until ... until what? }8-) I don't ask it to be perfect, but then I am not trying to top the solving list, like HK and some of the others are. (That chance is already gone forever when I decided to try for less time use during the tryout stage, rather than correctness. Now I can never chance my mind and have a shot at the top. That's ok, I would probably not want to try for that. But it would be nice to have had the choice) So I like it fine as it is. But I can see the point of wanting to know more from anyone who Is trying to top the list. |
||
|
"Here is a for instance of the ambiguity we face solving ... Suppose I find a line winning a piece in 3 moves. But there is an alternate line of different first move that wins 3 pawns in 5 moves, but the first line picks another p at move 9. But the second line got a 4th pawn at move 7." What you are describing isn't possible. If there are 2 different move sequences leading to roughly similar results, such position will be automatically rejected and will never make it to the tactical exercises, as you have 2 best moves with similar scores. |
||
|
baronderkilt 02-Sep-10, 00:50 |
ok GK |
||
|
|
||
|
tactics #9746 why is such an exercise still there when enabling that option? 1. Ne6+ wins a Q. I know it does not lead to any mate, but it still "wins" quite convincingly. Maybe it is an idea to exclude all the "mate" exercises where there is an alternative larger than +- +5.
|
Log in 
