@sheckley666 said in #4:
> If you got the last move wrong, then you probably only got the first move right by chance.
Not very true by experience but ok
@chessplayer56789 said in #5:
> Chess.com's rating system is more fair. If you get something like 3/4 moves correct, you get +5. Why can't this stuff be implemented to lichess? Or at least something like 3/4 is -5 instead of -15
stop complaining and comparing lichess with chess.com.
You only see the bad things, lichess is free while chess.com is not.
Well, as a beginner, I see the Lichess rating as a win. If I want points, I have to think really instead of "oh, I'll just move the piece here and see what happens".
Think that the key to this that usually puzzles made bu human ot taken from actual games, again, by human, so, lines are logical for human e.g. if you found the idea than you obviously(in most cases probably) know how to finish the winning line, unfortunately puzzles here extracted by program from local game base and sometimes local puzzles looks like "dry calculation" and no beauty in them at all, and logically no pleasure by solving them.
And yes if you found main idea and mistakengly choose wrong move at the end it must be calculated differently. Receipt for this - think and don't be in a hurry when solving puzzles
@greenteakitten said in #9:
> And I can confirm that inflates the ratings at chess.com by a lot (2200 here vs. 3200 there)
>
> If you like the other site so much, why not just play there exclusively? I see nothing wrong with the Lichess rating system, it’s more accurate because it makes you calculate the whole line instead of just kind of guessing moves.
Do you have any statistical data to prove it?
Surprisingly, I think an improvement on the ranking can be useful: although the aim of the puzzle is training, I think it could be useful to do this depending on the number of moves of the puzzle: a puzzle in three moves: you pass the first, +4, the second + 5 and you fail the last - 3. so +6 points in a problem where you had 2/3 seems fair to me. for those who want to say that it is good that it is like in games: draw does not exist in puzzles.
fail and lose everything in something that is "only for you and your ego" can greatly affect your motivation. We don't know how long a person spends in front of a puzzle, everyone is different. and a player at 1400 who spends 3 full minutes trying to calculate the best possible variations for his level does not deserve to lose -12 or -8 ranking if he just missed one move out of four. that won't make him learn, he will move on to the next one while still being completely disturbed by the previous one and will worry more about his rating than his skills. And that's sad.
Agree about motivation, rating technically means nothing... except it can motivate you, unfortunately DEmotivate too.
@sgtlaugh said in #10:
> Now there is no right or wrong here. Apples and oranges. You could go for partial ratings for failed puzzles (chess.com), or go binary, i.e. either correct or wrong (Lichess).
There is a third option: do what Chess Life and other "guess the move" publications have done for decades, awarding partial credit for second-best moves.
Try not to hang so much on the ratings. Much of life is in the grey zone where you can only guess whether something was well done or not. And so it is in chess. You might think your move was great but it was actually the game losing move. It even happens to super GMs.
With puzzles: use them as a tool to train and improve your tactical vision. Be persistent until you're as sure as you can be that you've got the entire solution and then make the first move. Just like in chess, there is no going back if you make a mistake. Don't worry so much about the ratings. They're fairly meaningless. You have as much time as you need on puzzles which isn't realistic. Look at my puzzle rating, going on that you'd think i was a strong player, but i'm not. I just take my time on puzzles.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.