Puzzle points review

Do you think it's a good idea to reward good second moves? I often find myself finding the almost good sequence on the second try. Example: had a puzzle where there was a major skewer, but my first move wasn't accurate, while my second move was on point. Or let's say my second try. Should the system not count this as a total loss? I believe it would be more rewarding towards beginners (like me), as it encourages them to have a shot while also giving more thought to their "last chance".

Do you agree? In both cases please present your argument.

No, because in a game you dont get a second try either.

Bring this argument to your math (or any) teacher, and see if they up your grade. ChessTempo does have a system of alternates thus giving you a number of chances. The deciding factor for my support is how far off the second move is. An extra move for mate is acceptable (although IRL this could be enough to lose on time), but grabbing an exchange instead of a piece is a failure. So the problem is: what error factor should be acceptable? Maybe we should allow everyone three tries without any penalty.

You may not get a second try in game, but reviewing the position and finding better moves after the fact is a learning process. It's arguably better than just losing a game or puzzle, forgetting about it, and moving on as they really didn't learn as much from their defeat.

In ZeNightman's example, a person who lost the puzzle on the first move and moved on wouldn't know the idea was about a skewer, or if they did, wouldn't know how to carry it out. Someone who reviewed and tried again could discover the skewer or practice how to carry out the skewer.

If we translate this to future games, the person who didn't practice could still miss skewers while the one who did would be more likely to find and carry out the skewers in their own games.

Hmm, getting lots of second bests in tactics is a sign of approaching mastery at that specific difficulty level. you are almost understanding the position. This can be a frustrating stage in development because we are working as hard as those who have mastered dynamics at that difficulty but are not getting results.

Unfortunately chess is crueler than a friendly math teacher.
You want results ( partial marks ,second chances) t o boost you toward mastery.
But the only consistent way to improve is for mastery to boost you toward results.

In puzzles on this site the second best moves are all at least 2.00 worse than the best one. It hurts to almost get it right but you got it wrong.

Very good arguments, and I appreciate your time in pointing out pro's and con's.

The point I was trying to make is that puzzles are all about learning and reward towards the end user. As if it would be in a teaching program. You want the end user to be engaged and keep his/hers curiosity fed through reward. We aren't talking about live games and surely the puzzles do not reflect that. The point of the puzzle is to present you with a certain situation where your best move can make a difference. I don't disagree with that, it's perfectly fine. My argument goes along the lines of reward player on second tries too. Or at least not deduct rating points if their second attempt was correct.

Do you agree?

If the puzzle is the teacher and we are the student than yes a friendlier teacher that allows us to error and improve on an individual puzzle basis could be considered to offer the student extra motivation and reward.

Conversely if you focus on mastery and not on reward, than you will learn the reason for failure after the puzzle without need for points.
We should be tryng to get better at chess over trying to increase or protect our rating.

Let's assume there are three kinds of solvers for an individual puzzle.
1.The solvers who don't understand the puzzle . They get it wrong on first and second tries.
2.The solvers who understand the attacking mechanic but miss a defensive resource. They get it wrong first but fix it on second tries.
3. The solvers you understand the attacking mechanic and find the defensive resource and play around it. They get the tactic correct on the first try.

Your reasonable arguments are tailored to your kind of solver and the rating adjustments made would favor your kind of solver, therefor they seem better to your kind of solver.
In short the friendly puzzle teacher model would inflate the tactics puzzle rating system, to your benefit.

These tactics are untimed, so take your time. Perhaps instead of changing the system, you can learn through failure. about what you missed without the need for rating rewards.

You can't post in the forums yet. Play some games!