Why can't I play on the same level as my puzzle rating?

Hi there!

1 - Many people recommend solving puzzles, and say it helps improving ....
2 - From what I noticed, usually players who solve puzzles have the puzzle rating very close to the rapid or classical rating (sometimes even the bullet, which is crazy!)
3 - I played many games and solved many puzzles, and I feel that the difference of 1000 between the ratings is strange and confuses me, and even makes me think that maybe my brain is so slow and d#mb, cuz why can't I play in real games at the same level like other people do ...

So, my question is, is it normal (and how common) to be much better at puzzles than at a chess game?

Maybe is such case solving more puzzles will be a waste of time in terms of improving in chess games?

Thank you + please don't chess-bully me in comments lol!
Have a nice day.

@Enlightenmania2022 said in #1:

Don't focus on the puzzle rating just keep solving and improving your chess. My puzzle rating was 2600 a few days back and my rapid has been 2200 for quite some time now so it is normal.

Solving more puzzles will never be a time waste as your calculating your seeing more patterns and your training your brain to Calculate properly as well as add more patterns to your brain thus improving pattern recognition

Well with puzzles you know there is a solution and in games that's not always the case .

@Enlightenmania2022 said in #1:

usually players who solve puzzles have the puzzle rating very close to the rapid or classical rating ... I feel that the difference of 1000 between the ratings is strange
Not so strange, IMHO. Mine is "only" ~800 right now but I already got over 1000 at one moment. My understanding is that comparing puzzle ratings between different players is even more difficult than comparing game ratings because people handle puzzles in very different ways. Most people don't spend more than 5-10 minutes on a puzzle why others (like me) can sometimes sit for an hour on a difficult one until they solve it. There is also a difference whether you go through the "random mix" so that you have no idea what to look for or if you select puzzles by theme and know in advance what kind of tactics to seek.

Unlike many others, I don't think puzzle ratings are useless but I fully agree that comparing puzzle ratings between people with different approach to puzzles makes no sense. On the other hand, your puzzle ratings works quite well as a feedback for yourself to give you some idea how are you doing (e.g. compared to how you did few months ago).

@mkubecek said in #4:

Unlike many others, I don't think puzzle ratings are useless

Indeed, they are very useful because individual puzzles have a rating too. Thus it's a very good way for the algorithm to select challenging, but not too hard puzzles for every player and their puzzle-solving style. So if your puzzle rating is, say, around 2000, then puzzles in that range (or so) should be a good challenge for you.

Puzzles ratings ARE indeed useless to compare yourself to other players, for the reasons mentioned above.

It's normal for your chess and puzzle ratings to be different since they measure different things. Puzzles are very useful for help with improving calculation and tactical ability. However even if they measure slightly different things being better at puzzles should always be beneficial to your chess.

However there are some aspects that aren't trained with puzzles. First of all there is opening theory and to certain extent positional/structural moves that don't result in a material gain can be blind spots. There's also the skill in learning how to develop pieces and fight for the initiative to reach the positions found in puzzles.

In addition there's also the problem that in a puzzle there's always a solution. This means that if all moves look equal apart from a crazy sacrifice in a puzzle you know everything else draws so that sacrifice must be the solution. In a game it's the reverse where a crazy sacrifice is more likely to lead to a loss. So to some extent you need to learn how to identify what is likely to be a critical position that requires calculation and then come up with an evaluation without relying on fact a win definitely exists.

rating are relative that means that 1500 one pool means different thing a another pool. Puzzle rating have big difference between other pools. None rating system measure how good you are but only how often you win/lose. And since for some reason the problem pool rating for problems were quite bit on the high side it means that people get high rating in puzzles.

puzzle ratings are inflated by about 150

Ratings are not an absolute measure of playing strength.

It is pointless to compare puzzle ratings to playing ratings, or ratings of different players of groups (like time controls, servers, etc).

There is no such thing like "one rating is inflated". This doesn't make sense at all. You could easily lift (or lower) all ratings by 100, 500, or 1000 points, and everything would work the same, and the differences between players would remain the same. Elo (or Glicko) gives a rating for strength relative to each other, so only the difference between ratings is truly meaningful.

As for the usefulness of the puzzle rating... I think it is mostly useful for yourself, to see if you can improve. It might help you to stay motivated on the harder puzzles. But for comparing with playing rating it is rather useless. Even for comparison with other people's puzzle rating it is dubious, as everyone solves puzzles differently.

@GabeMiami17 said in #8:

puzzle ratings are inflated by about 150

LOL, that would be so cool. My puzzle rating goes up to 2500 sometimes...