View Full Version : percentage success at Chess Tactical Server

01-10-2006, 09:05 PM

tonight, finally:

a mighty long haul!!!!

85.0293% (85.0%)
#158 rank

3,297f/18,726s = 22,023 tries
#30 rank

RD 16.7
#2 of 1434 active users (late Saturday, when I hit 85.00%)
RD 18.7
#15 tonight (late Sunday, when I re-established 1500.1 elo).

how many CTS (http://chess.emrald.net/ctsActTact.php?Rows=100) users 20,000 tries and up are => than 85.0% and rated over 1420? six, illustrated by tries (descending order):

morkovkin 1615, 21.2k @ 89.1%
dktransform 1500, 22.0 @ 85.0%
alvis 1543, 24.9k @ 87.5%
kawala 1534, 27.1k @ 84.2%
spacecowboy 1424, 27.7k @ 88.9%
trallala 1583, 34.3k @ 93.1%

is this the only grouping of outstanding efforts? no. just my idea of what i idealize in other CTS users and have been striving for. others who are close:

slowmouse 1403, 10.8 @ 93.5%
bahus 1537, 11.1k @ 89.0%
loomis 1668, 14.1k @ 77.9%
edgy 1684, 15.2k @ 79.6%
chessdog 1305, 27.0k @ 95.8%
mousetrapper 1423, 31.5 @ 82.2%
wormwood 1560, 61.2k @ 77.7%
temposchlucker 1560, 67.6k @ 79.9%

slowmouse is below 1424 but % is ++
bahus is rated+ with %++
loomis is rated ++
edgy is rated ++
chessdog is rated lower but % is ++
mousetrapper is below 85.0% but has ++ tries
wormwood is rated + with tries++ but -lower %
temposchlucker is rated + with tries ++ but lower %

lastly, one prefatory note:

just as to be in the top 100 worldwide in FIDE 2600 was sufficient but now does not suffice, for the first time when previously 9,800 tries was enough to be in the CTS top 100 in tries, now one must have 10,200 tries to get there.

likeforest and i were both #165 in percentage success two weeks ago, and while he soared to #137 at 85.9%, i am now only #159 for similar reasons above: new users! i was 84.5% weeks ago, and now am 85.0% and barely budged. it is getting crowded at 84.5 to 85.0% and the air only gets thinner at 85.0%+. There are now like ten million new users with sets of only 50 to <100 tries who lodge 85% sessions then remain inactive, and this means that to be #150 or below in percentage success you have to pedal extra hard now!

now that i "have this done", i will push it back to 1535 elo, then go for 1540 again from a few days ago... dk

addendum, added late Sunday 01Oct06:

(i) some other users who all have high percentile with higher tries and ratings combined (percentages, ascending order):

FARKINDAMIYIZ 1595, 1.1k @96.6%
tjeulesbetes 1546, 3.2k @ 95.4%
AlfiereCattivo 1510, 4.6k @94.9%
firegarden 1487, 8.0k @94.7%
navan 1555, 5.9k @ 87.5%
helmt3 1679, 8.0k @ 86.2%

FARKINDAMIYIZ has very few tries but rating + and %++
tjeulesbetes has few tries but rating + and %++
AlfiereCattivo has lower - tries but %++
firegarden has it all: rating, %++ but tries less less than 10k -
navan has tries less than 10k but rating + and percentage +
helmt3 has rating ++, %+, and tries as yet less than 10k.

(ii) i plan to take a much deserved break or at the very least, a real reduction from CTS, not a long break, but 12,023 tries since the outage in early July and 2023 tries in the last 8 days is enough effort?? my goal all summer was 85.00% by 22k and 20k by 15 september.

(iii) my new goal:

1f/13s = 14 tries each set, or 3f/39s = 42 tries @ 92.86% for the next 8,000.

this will put me at 3,900f/26,100s = 30,000 or 87.00% (and i do not mean 86.501 or '87%', and thus i need 605f/7,395s = 8,000 or 92.4375% for the next set of tries. probable goals are: 88% for 40,000 and 89% for 50,000. my expectation is that 87 is lofty, so 86.5 is more probable but a goal just beyond ones comfort zone is good...

(iv) here on out, i will not longer lay out my score sheet in rows of ten as i did for a long time, then rows of eight (1f/9s = 10 @ 90.00%), but rows of forteen to reinforce this.

1/7 = 0.142856 or 14, 28, 56 etc, so 1/14 is .071428 or 7, 14, 28 etc. a little crazy kabalistic magik cannot hurt a man??? no.

(v) i will shift back to CT-Art 3.0 and this is longed for by every pore of my chess body! dk

02-10-2006, 07:07 AM
Congratulations, another step on the road to chess mastery! Only 66 from 22,000--and no snide remarks from ******** this time.

Have you played any games recently to see how your recent tactical gains have improved your overall game? If I recall correctly, you were 1625-1650 a couple months ago.

05-10-2006, 01:27 PM
I say all this to confuse you...:D

My over teh board tactics are hopeless. I cannot do any of that chess tactics server stuff either; I take about a minute to get my mind around teh dynamics of where the pieces are etc. I have absolutely no hope of getting a chess tactics rating over about 1200. I get a lot of them right but teh time limit beats me. I am consistent for my slowness; I will often get about ten ina row right without slipping up but since I take about two minutes to do each one then, according to this tactics s erver, I don't know jack about a pin or a fork.

But in my correspondence chess my tactical awareness is really good. I often find very subtle and complex tactics which utilise a number of motifs at once: pin, fork, decoy, space clearance , freeing up a square for attack etc. Indeed, if you put my over the board games alongside my correspondence ones you would never guess taht it is the same player.

I have reached a conclusion that chess coaches do not want to know about: there are some people for whom "quick sight of teh board" is impossible. I just cannot do it. I also ahve a terrible chess memory. After OTB games don't ask me where on move 16 the knight could have gone etc. Yet I see people who can do such a post mortum with their eyes shut.

The conclusion that most coaches would leap to hence is " qpawn is a hopeless beginner who doesn't know anything". Indeed, I gave up playing at Elwood CC because of such attitudes. But that's not the case; I understand chess very well. In my correspondence games I know what moves to look for. I have a good eye for candidates. I know what plans are hap-pening.

So, do I regard the chess tactics server as beinga measure of everyone's chess knowledge/understanding or tactical prowess? Absolutely not!

I am what every modern chess theorist doesn't want to know; a skilled player who defies all the modern psychobabble about cognition in chess! According to any marker [ quick sight of teh board., memory etc] I am a patzer. But anyone who palys me in postchess discovers very quickly taht taht is not teh case.

05-10-2006, 04:30 PM
[quote deleted-mod]

QPawn..so when are you going to "prove yourself" OTB against me...?;)

we can do it as a fundraiser for MCC :)

05-10-2006, 04:36 PM
Thank you for your concerted reply.

Since your average post is about 3/4 of a sentence, it would appear that something has got your goat? You have well exceeded your usual metre. What is the disturbance, or, those we dislike we are more alike than not? how much attention can we give to what we say we are not and aborant of but at the same time not unlike?

who ever said that CTS was the ultimate or end measure, but, in fact, just making measures within that space itself? who judges those who judge those who judge?

What do you want that you do not have? Or do you love your hate, or work like a dog? All the best, dk

ps, what of iran, pakistan, mynmar, korea, isael, nigeria, uganda? have you been to any of those places? are perhaps many of them shall we say pugilistic countries? himmmm? what is the fight all about out there? missing human dignity or kindness, or charity or understanding of identification? what mirror does not reflect back on us?

08-10-2006, 08:11 AM
[what follows was written in late July; I needed time to think about it, before editing. here it is...]

I have been reflecting and thinking for weeks. Although I tend to post a lot or impromptu, this post is one that I have chewed on for weeks, figuring out what to say and how to say it—even in things as different as while driving for work, after writing my blog, while working at my job stacking tile or moving carpet, after chess tactical server exercises, the works… so pretty darn intentionally.

This is an open post to temposchlucker (http://temposchlucker.blogspot.com/).

Tempo, you are the king here, no pun intended. Nor need anyone try to supplant your position as top dog here, as you are obviously not only really smart, work hard concretely at your chess (anyone doubt this, all they need do is just go to CTS, go to “Tacticians (http://chess.emrald.net/ctsActTact.php?Order=Tries)”, and rank the “Tries” or RD--while this coefficient there indicates how much your rating is modified for any correct or incorrect answer. The lower it is, the less volatile your rating will be either way. But what it really indicates is effort in the last week, since it dissipates each day if a user remains inactive), post really great stuff, and help connect lots of us here. You are also kind and generous in being available offline in offering help when help is asked for. Thank you.

But having said all that, and this is in no way to disrespect you or your excellent work, I keep asking myself what is missing or what is not being said. The one time my brother (he has worked at a Director level for big systems integrators along the lines of IBM, EDS, etc. for 18 years, often speaking at big Comdex type conferences along side Microsoft, Oracle, Peoplesoft, SAP, etc.) was quoted in the Wall Street Journal, they asked him what he thought about xyz event? “Everyone wants to notice who is here; I want to know who is NOT here”. He is a level headed guy. I always remembered that.

So fast forward, to our Blogger and blogspot. We cannot really say a lot about who is not here, so instead get to ask what is not here, or, if not here, her to a lesser extent:

We all want to get better--better at chess. For many of us westerners, it goes back to the Faustian myth of effort. This deep effort goes through the core of our culture, all well chronicled by philosophers of history, such as Oswald Spengler (and also Arnold Toynbee and Ferdinand Braudel), who’s Decline of the West was much trumped up by mythographer Joseph Campbell in his Masks of God series. China and Japan also has this same obsession with effort, unpinned by Buddhism, Zen, Bushido, and Confucianism. But this is an effort in a different way. I can suggest ways this other stream differs, but not the place here—best left to others.

We have this idea that if we do more, somehow we will always be more. Even I have this bias. It is how we are wired. But there are parts of chess, and of course parts of life, where activity or lots of movement is exactly the wrong way. If not wrong way, let’s put it as “less than ideal.

Jacob Aagaard in his wonderful Excelling at Chess talks about how teacher and great trainer Mark Dvoretsky who not only recommended not only learning some 40 key endings, but rather than learn specific endings by rote or by heart as we say, he instead recommended the deep understanding of how a few but thematic positions or types of endings operated. The idea is not to flood the mind with hundreds of exceptions, but to SIT with only a few positions YET really embrace their concepts.

In network theory, or systems theory, three items have three relationships; four points have six relationships; five, ten relationships:

(3) 1+2=3
(4) 1+2+3=6
(5) 1+2+3+4=10
(6) 1+2+3+4+5=15
(7) 1 ... +6=21
(8) 1 ... +7=28 ... and so on. the idea is that as we add one more thing, we do not have a linear accumulation, but a system increase of complexity--i.e. more stuff to communicate with other stuff, just to do what was accomplished more simply at another level of preceding order, only exponentially increasing. This is exactly why large 'all play all' GM tournements are so hard to host, and in the modern era why long tournements like St. Petersburg 1914 etc, are so rare if not unheard. Hence the FIDE lotery and accelerated knockout or giant swisses.

but now the brain. The mind. All those exercises at a certain point might have deminishing returns. But only AFTER lots of them first. There is the catch!

Picasso could shift over to the abstract genre precisely because he had learned as a boy to drawn like classic photo-realistic master Ingres. Wittgenstein could throw out Hume and Kant because he had Russell who had ultra cogent J.S. Mill. Tal had Botvinnik to stand on.

This is why large mega-civilizations ultimatley collapse: grid-lock. why large fast growing companies like Microsoft and Cisco must become in the long run, slow stable growers with massive overhead, facilities, staff, and reduced risk. this is maybe even why Kraminik began to do more to preserve his title than play best, creative chess (similarly Fischer who per Kasparov viewed himself as at risk after seeing theburgeoning Karpov.

* * *

I agree with you. Lots of effort is needed. But not all part of chess are solved that way--so much talk by everyone—you, me, all of us—about more problems, more time, more intensity. But quietly sitting with a board, looking at simple positions and asking, “how is this won?” I guess this is a lot more like GM-Ram than CTS, TASC, CT Art 3.0, Renko, Polgar’ brick, or even 1001 Sacrifices and Combinations or 3000 blitz games on the web.

Further along side the obvious mention of Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual (or Mueller’s Fundamental Chess Endings), we could just as easily mention his School of Chess Excellence 2: Tactics, or School of Chess Excellence 3: Strategy. There he gives exercise that you can spend hours on or days. Not 10,000 problems, or 50 problems, maybe not even ten--but one chess problem. You know all this already, but I believe that this bears here. Or take Agur’s Bobby Fischer’s Approach to Chess (recommended by Jonathan Tisdall in Improve Your Chess Now. How many months might a person tracing the connectivity through all those related positions?--real chess.

And lastly, Shereshevsky in his Endgame Strategy book covers these deep, but overtly simple positions, but more middle game to endgame transitions. In your wonderful post of Wednesday June 28th, 2006, titled “What Do you do with Your Analysis”, you touch on this. I say, may god have me do more work like this!

In business, marginal analysis is key to understanding how companies improve and distinguishing where they split. Not to upset any liberals, but the beauty of business is that, like chess you always get a report card. And the same can be said of major sports. Or even politics…

In business you get to see how much money you make. This is the good part (the bad part of course is that often times companies and/or business owners who own and control capital sacrifices the quality of lives of others in the single minded pursuit of maximal profits. Again, others elsewhere write of this).

Along with this line about effort, there is a person, there is a life. If we work at least eight hours, as we mainly do in the west if not much more in other countries (most notably east Asia where going home early is de rigor, or verboten. Where are you going, as they cast their glance), and travel on average 1.25 hours, then a lunch, then getting out the door and in the door or making lunch or other such “prep”, we easily use 11 hours. The 6 or 8 of sleep. We read our email, call a friend or take out the recycled waste… Then our loved ones… so there is 18 hours work and sleep, travel or mobilization, then 2 to 4 for relational stuff, eating or replenishment, entertainment, exercise. It is not my purpose here to argue 'time savers' such as living close to work, or cycling, or organic food. Just the raw number. So now we add the 11, then the 7, then the 3 and that’s 21 hours.

In business, if you are an airline and your gross margins are 3.5%, and jet fuel goes up, causing this go to up, say for example 20%, then now your overhead or SG&A (sales, general, and administrative or overhead) is now 4.2%. If on the gross margin, you only make 5.0%, your net is now 0.8, not 1.5% or a decrease of 46.6%. So a 0.7% net increase of costs in a key area (20% of 3.5%) is a huge impact. If fuel falls 20%, now 4.2% gross less 0.7% is a lot of “leverage”: You planned for 4.2, and now get a 16.67% decrease in a key cost, and go from 0.8 margin to 1.5% margin, or an 87.5% increase in profit. All this from 0.7 of something you can or cannot control.

If we study chess two to three hours a day, or play for 1.5 hours and blog for 30 minutes, this is a lifestyle choice. This is a lot more than tactical training or chess improvement, it is a way of being. “Show me what a man eats and who he associates with, and I will tell you who they are”, or however the saying goes.

We occupy ourselves, while on earth, and, it seems to me there is a lot more going on here than tactical calculation, cognition, learning, or long term memory, competition, or communities of knowledge. Chess, it seems to me is much more than that, and is a tool to activate or affect parts of the brain, and while living in life with chess, surely not doing many other things!

In chess, we get to practice the doing of what we do somewhere else, and, it seems to me, only if these other things are sound is this chess viable. This is the tragedy of the great genius of Bobby Fischer. He won all of chess and lost nearly all of everything else: his freedom, his peace of mind, his money, his renoun in a way, his proximity to others, lost good sportsmanship, lost his comfort and lost his way.

[I re-read this, and this is most of it; I will add more in the days ahead as I clarify what is missing in discussing what is missing! :)]


09-10-2006, 09:07 PM
So, do I regard the chess tactics server as beinga measure of everyone's chess knowledge/understanding or tactical prowess? Absolutely not!

I agree, absolutely not. CTS is a good measure of your ability to spot tactical patterns, which tends to be important in real-time games.

My over teh board tactics are hopeless. I cannot do any of that chess tactics server stuff either; I take about a minute to get my mind around teh dynamics of where the pieces are etc. I have absolutely no hope of getting a chess tactics rating over about 1200.
Tactical skill can be further divided into "calculation" and "pattern recognition".

Calculation is when you look at a fresh position and say, "If I go here, he goes there, then I capture..." All chess players do this to some extent. The better class players have honed this skill by studying complex tactical positions.

According to Scientific American, while us patzers spend most of our time calculating, grandmasters spend much of their time recalling similar positions. This is pattern recognition. In the words of the tactician Tarrasch, "You must see!"

Another skill is a healthy thinking process, examining every check and capture every move.

Your reference to modern psychobabble means you've probably heard all this before. Chess is a past-time. Whatever you enjoy most, is right for you. :)

10-10-2006, 08:43 PM
Collini at my blog, said:
Congratulations, dk, on your highest personal rating on CTS! Perhaps I'll give your percentage approach a try using a new handle. However, I doubt that I will have this much stamina. Nice to see that it seems to pays off! - collini (http://chess.emrald.net/tProfile.php?TacID=2471)
Mon Oct 09, 06:58:37 AM PDT

transformation (http://dk-transformation.blogspot.com/) said...
collini, while at CTS your elo is very high at 1722--or the 6.8% of all users--at 4,412 tries, and while you also aptly indicate that your percentage is only 65.3%, may i suggest you keep going on this id or user name anyway? for the following reasons:

when you do the next 7,588 @ 89%, you will have 6,753 success to add to your already 2,881, or 9,634 successes for 12,000 tries, or 80.3% or more.

while it is indeed appealing to start over, as you call it, and 'retool' for 85 or 90% and get that satisfaction hopefully, and thus practice far closer to Heisenmanian 'real chess' (cf. chessCafe.com, or phillytudor icc), when you do the next 8,000 after that at 90%, then your average for 20,000 will be more like 84.2%, and you will have big tries with accompanying high percentile.

if you start over now, after 4,000 tries, you will not be back to where you are now in tries. when you do the next 4,000, you will be inches or centimeters from 10k.

imagine how good you will feel to have 10,000. we all eventually come to the day when we wish we did it different. but we see that if we shift our averages from our current place, what a good fight we will have to get there, or what russian armeian philosopher George Gurdjieff called 'inner struggle'.


ps, [latter, same night, 5 am pst, during topalov-kramnik game 11] my check indicates that there is a new user from Germany called coreolarus, 1602 elo 37 tries, at 100%. if you know him, would you mind suggesting he use this as a lesser test id for after he warms up as collini?