@Chuck_Fess I completely fail to see how it is not 'training' to train spotting easy tactics faster. -actually it is training by definition of the word. Independent of what we call it: I want to spend time solving easy puzzles, to become faster and in due time spot some medium puzzles, and so on.
And I don't think that makes any sense at all as a strategy. Continuing to solve easy puzzles will help you to solve easy puzzles. But this is not useful, because you already find them to be easy. Solving tons of 1400 level puzzles really fast will not make you good at 1700 level puzzles, or whatever, anymore than beating tons of players much worse than you in a standard game is going to prepare you to beat players better than you. It does not work that way.
@Chuck_Fess Solving 1400 puzzles faster WILL make you better at solving 1700 puzzles because the core of the puzzles basically are the same, there is not that many basic patterns and if you calculate faster the easy ones, the tougher would seem a little less tough.
It's like saying lifting a lot of small weights won't you help lift the heavier ones.
It's like saying lifting a lot of small weights won't you help lift the heavier ones.
The discussion here is going a little off topic here. It doesn't really matter if solving easier puzzles is a great strategy to improve your chess skills, but obviously there are people who would enjoy doing this.
Right now your only possibility is to log out of you account and log back in when you are done which certainly is not optimal.
For players with a low puzzle rating no (easy) possibility exists to try out hard ones.
I can see, that this might not be top priority for lichess developers, but maybe that would be a feature where relatively little effort would give some of us much more fun with the puzzles.
Right now your only possibility is to log out of you account and log back in when you are done which certainly is not optimal.
For players with a low puzzle rating no (easy) possibility exists to try out hard ones.
I can see, that this might not be top priority for lichess developers, but maybe that would be a feature where relatively little effort would give some of us much more fun with the puzzles.
You can select the difficulty on beta.chesstempo.com/chess-tactics
Simple puzzles are a great warm-up prior to an "important" game. You don't want to spend too much energy, it just helps getting into the right mood. I've seen that recommendation a few times.
Simple puzzles are a great warm-up prior to an "important" game. You don't want to spend too much energy, it just helps getting into the right mood. I've seen that recommendation a few times.
@Sarg0n : These days I only do puzzles when logged out. Otherwise I find the expectation that the puzzle will be within a couple of hundred points of my rating skews the way I approach them. I'm getting puzzles pretty much across the whole rating range from 800 to above 2500. But it does seem to be weighted towards puzzles from about 1300 to 2100.
I fully support this idea. I presume it’s not too difficult to put three buttons on the top left box that say Easy, Medium, Normal, and Hard. Easy shows puzzles maybe under 1800, medium 1800 - 2100, normal matches your rating, and hard above 2100.
Or you can have it so that Easy is 500 below your rating and Hard is 500 above. Something like this is an interesting idea.
Oh, and if you’re worried about puzzle rating, you can make it so easy mode doesn’t gain a lot of points, which it already doesn’t.
Or you can have it so that Easy is 500 below your rating and Hard is 500 above. Something like this is an interesting idea.
Oh, and if you’re worried about puzzle rating, you can make it so easy mode doesn’t gain a lot of points, which it already doesn’t.
@HommeSaoul
"Solving 1400 puzzles faster WILL make you better at solving 1700 puzzles because the core of the puzzles basically are the same"
So if they are the same, why are the ratings different, and why does it matter which one you get? Because they are not the same, that's why.
Purposely playing opponents much worse than yourself will not prepare you to beat players better than yourself. The same is true of the puzzles.
There is another thread here with a user who has completed 14,000 puzzles, complains that he only gets easy ones, and yet has a rating of only 1500 on them. This does not support your argument. Can you point me to anyone at all who has intentionally done tons of easy puzzles and wound up able to solve hard ones because of it?
You get better at hard puzzles by practicing hard puzzles. I'm not saying every puzzle you do needs to be impossible, but specifically seeking out puzzles because you know you already find them to be easy will not make you better in any worthwhile way at anything other than puzzles you already find easy.
If you already find them easy, then when do you know you are ready for the hard ones? When you try the hard ones, that's when. So you might as well do the ones you already find challenging, that is where it has to go anyway. Those are the ones it is worthwhile to "practice".
"Solving 1400 puzzles faster WILL make you better at solving 1700 puzzles because the core of the puzzles basically are the same"
So if they are the same, why are the ratings different, and why does it matter which one you get? Because they are not the same, that's why.
Purposely playing opponents much worse than yourself will not prepare you to beat players better than yourself. The same is true of the puzzles.
There is another thread here with a user who has completed 14,000 puzzles, complains that he only gets easy ones, and yet has a rating of only 1500 on them. This does not support your argument. Can you point me to anyone at all who has intentionally done tons of easy puzzles and wound up able to solve hard ones because of it?
You get better at hard puzzles by practicing hard puzzles. I'm not saying every puzzle you do needs to be impossible, but specifically seeking out puzzles because you know you already find them to be easy will not make you better in any worthwhile way at anything other than puzzles you already find easy.
If you already find them easy, then when do you know you are ready for the hard ones? When you try the hard ones, that's when. So you might as well do the ones you already find challenging, that is where it has to go anyway. Those are the ones it is worthwhile to "practice".
@GrandDesaster
"The discussion here is going a little off topic here. It doesn't really matter if solving easier puzzles is a great strategy to improve your chess skills, but obviously there are people who would enjoy doing this. "
I don't have a problem with the feature or doing it because it is fun or relaxing or whatever, I think that makes perfect sense. In fact, I could swear it use to be that way on this site years ago, but I might be thinking of something different.
What doesn't make perfect sense is to say we should be able to do this for the sake of doing easy puzzles in order to become good at hard ones. The OP didn't make that claim, though, that was other people further down the thread.
You said earlier that the primary use of the puzzle rating is to control the difficulty of puzzles you get, and I agree. There is no other reason to care about it. So I don't think the argument that this would taint the rating pool really matters anyway, because the ratings are mostly "for yourself", as you say. It's just that doing easy puzzles specifically because they are easy is not a particularly good way to get better at harder puzzles.
"The discussion here is going a little off topic here. It doesn't really matter if solving easier puzzles is a great strategy to improve your chess skills, but obviously there are people who would enjoy doing this. "
I don't have a problem with the feature or doing it because it is fun or relaxing or whatever, I think that makes perfect sense. In fact, I could swear it use to be that way on this site years ago, but I might be thinking of something different.
What doesn't make perfect sense is to say we should be able to do this for the sake of doing easy puzzles in order to become good at hard ones. The OP didn't make that claim, though, that was other people further down the thread.
You said earlier that the primary use of the puzzle rating is to control the difficulty of puzzles you get, and I agree. There is no other reason to care about it. So I don't think the argument that this would taint the rating pool really matters anyway, because the ratings are mostly "for yourself", as you say. It's just that doing easy puzzles specifically because they are easy is not a particularly good way to get better at harder puzzles.
The boring problem of the puzzles is that you get tactics of your current level only. Always solving capture moves will not help to solve mates in 2 (considered as weaker).
The daily puzzles have the magic to be played at an unknown level. So you do not adapt your thinking to its estimated level. This is the reality OTB!!! You never know the ELO of your position while you know on lichess that there is always something to do... However the daily puzzles never affect your rating :(
In the past:
- you could play any puzzle with rating change: that was great!
- you could select the strength with the 3 buttons
Selecting the desired ELO range from the options would be nice. I would like -400/+150 to be able to have more diversity, mates to solve instead of captures and a more accurate lower rating. Reducing the ELO for fastness will not bring better skills according to my humble experience.
The daily puzzles have the magic to be played at an unknown level. So you do not adapt your thinking to its estimated level. This is the reality OTB!!! You never know the ELO of your position while you know on lichess that there is always something to do... However the daily puzzles never affect your rating :(
In the past:
- you could play any puzzle with rating change: that was great!
- you could select the strength with the 3 buttons
Selecting the desired ELO range from the options would be nice. I would like -400/+150 to be able to have more diversity, mates to solve instead of captures and a more accurate lower rating. Reducing the ELO for fastness will not bring better skills according to my humble experience.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.