chess database

Chess Database

Tag and you will discover!
Wild name, real hobbies
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
alice02 34 ( +1 | -1 )
CT Art - Forum Does anyone know of a web address for a forum for users of the chess training software CT Art? I want to find out if anyone else has a mega difference between their GK and CT Art rating.

But anyway I am so proud (LOL) of my rating - which is all my own honest work, that i posted a picture of it on my profile:) - and I didnt even delete that i had a 47% success rate:)
naamloos 46 ( +1 | -1 )
ct-art I don't think you can take the rating in CT-Art very serious. I have a rating of 1890 in Ct-art and altough I'm stronger than my current rating would suggest (lots of timeouts), it is nowhere near the 1900. I've heard in a review that you can take about 200 points off your Ct-Art rating and be close to your OTB-rating, but it seems to me that even this is not enough.
Ofcourse it wouldn't be comparable to Gameknot anyways because they are measuring different things.
alice02 14 ( +1 | -1 )
RATING STAYS high WITH SERIES OF MISTAKES Does your rating ever go down eg when you make a series of mistakes? I have never seen my CT Art rate drop.
naamloos 19 ( +1 | -1 )
It does, If on 1800 you make a couple of mistakes on one problem, you would probably drop in rating. You can check the graph in the statistics. It will show every rating after every problem.
More: Chess
alice02 31 ( +1 | -1 )
Thanks I se what you mean about the graph.

I just love the test statistics. It doesn't seem to average across the number of tests you do. The most recent test I did was of 2 problems - got them both right and received an ELO of 2635 (LOL) WOW I rate higher than Cairo (LOL)

At least, until he starts using CT Art.:)
naamloos 75 ( +1 | -1 )
rating Altough I believe the ratings are faulty, CT Art remains an excellent way to improve your tactics and thus your game. When I use this for a period of time every day, I can see tactics in games much faster and certain patterns are recognised immediately.
It does seem that it is not the best way to prepare for an OTB game. A couple of weeks ago, I joined a tournament and fr preparation I used CT-Art alot in the couple of days before the start. My results were not that good and I think that this is due to too much of those problems. After a while you start searching too much for winning tactics while completely ignoring you position. I find that playing over games (well annotated) is the way to go if your preparing for a tournament or a important OTB-game.
mattdw 108 ( +1 | -1 )
"It does seem that it is not the best way to prepare for an OTB game. A couple of weeks ago, I joined a tournament and fr preparation I used CT-Art alot in the couple of days before the start. My results were not that good and I think that this is due to too much of those problems. After a while you start searching too much for winning tactics while completely ignoring you position. I find that playing over games (well annotated) is the way to go if your preparing for a tournament or a important OTB-game. "

How about a bit of both? I can't really speak from experience as I've only been playing for about 3 months but already in my experience I would say that games played at my level (and quite a bit higher, up to a point it seems) always seem to be decided on one player taking a tactical opportunity set up by a blunder by thier opponent. Besides, if there are no obvious tactics available then surely you could play a strategic move with the intent of an overall improvement of your position that might make it easier for you to apply some tactical knowledge later on.
alice02 82 ( +1 | -1 )
Why on earth? My reactions to using CT Art are

Why on earth?
It cant do that!!!

That's throwing the game away!!!!!

Perhaps there are essential concepts that beginners have to learn that block further progress. It became apparent to me from using CT Art that one of mine was. "That move will put a piece in danger - dont even think about that move anymore."

I like tha "play from this position." I think "i will put the pieces in a safe position" and then to my horror see CT Art demonstrate that what I thought was safe was actually long term dangerous.

I dont think my play has improved from CT Art for the beginning of a game when there are just too many alternatives tp balance. But I think when there are far fewer pieces on the board I see more alternatives because of CT Art.
naamloos 108 ( +1 | -1 )
Altough tactics are very important at a sub 2000 level, it does seem that the current hype about tactics is somewhat exagerated. The popular viewpoint is that almost all games below master are decided, because of tactical blunders is not true and it really depends on the person himself.
This morning I reviewed all my games in my database to check where and why I lost points. In my games it looks that lousy endgame technique is costing me by far the most points.
In the tournament I mentioned before I played 5 games and got 2 points. I lost 1,5 points due to bad assesment in the endgame (twice agreeing a draw in a won position, resigning in a drawn position), 1 because of a positional blunder and a half point because of a external factor (arriving a hour late and forced to accept a draw). Tactically there was not much wrong in my games.
Still it remains very important to keep on studying tactics (tactical blunders are certainly not absent in my games), but on basis of these observations it seems that endgame and positional stuff is significant enough to use some time for it.
ionadowman 185 ( +1 | -1 )
Tactics are important... ...but they often become part of one's technique. E.g. Philidor's mate (just one example) in which a Q is given up to allow a N to smother-mate the enemy K in the corner, might seem pretty arcane, but it is well worth knowing. 'schnarre' recently got to play it on GK (check out the 'unsound openings' thread). I never have, not ever, yet as a Motif (capital for emphasis) it has been valuable in several games in the past. Knowing the idea too, the opponent's options are that much curtailed. As they are when there exists a potential for a double attack, a pin, or a skewer, say.
Tactics can appear in even quite simple positions. I recently lost a game K+B+P vs K+B+2P by walking into a tactical shot (a skewer - very painful). I had been stearing for a particular position to nail the draw, my opponent was probably aware of the fact, and laid one last trap before agreeing to split the point. The lesson: 'Be Aware!' (or...'Beware!').
Alexandr Kotov has remarked that his own progress was slowed early in his career by a failure to appreciate the value of analysis (by which tactical ideas, anong other things will emerge). Trying out 'problems' based on real games is good exercise, but perhaps something to do as a routine, not so much in preparation for a tournament. For the latter, playing over well-annotated games - or even unannotated games trying to figure out what's going on - can be very useful, particularly if you are trying out particular openings. For this, Bill Hartston recommends getting as many games as you can with that opening (hundreds, ideally!), and just playing them through to see how the game shapes. This (he reckons) will give you a kind of feel for what the opening is intended to achieve, and what countermeasures are available to the other side. A few annotated games will no doubt be of benefit in this exercise!
Cheers,
Ion
alice02 50 ( +1 | -1 )
CT Art Puzzle 3 In number 3 ct art insists that you take the knight with the rook and responds by capturing it with a rook. If, however you set it to "play this position" and capture the knight with the rook, CT ART responds by moving the queen.

I dont know why the programme did not point out that the move could be countered in this way. I still learn a lot from it - but I am not sure that when I solve an exercise I have reached the best solution.

But I think I will "play this position" for every exercise now.
naamloos 128 ( +1 | -1 )
puzzle 3 I just looked and excersice 3 in Ct-art is a relative simple forking of the queen and king after first taking a knight with your queen and it seems that it is different than the one you are talking about. With puzzle 3 you do mean excercise 3 I take?
There was also no difference between what Crafty played and what was shown as the answer.
Maybe CT-art puts emphasis on the patterns within a problem and choses - for the opponent - a subpar line to show why the answer is forcing and highlighting the pattern that makes this move good.
Example: Keymove is Rook takes a bishop which, if taken back with a queen, allows a king and queen fork. Ct-art might take the rook allowing to make the fork, just to show that the fork is what makes this work. Even though a computerengine obviously would not take back and goes furher without his knight, but saving his queen.
I hope this is a bit understandable, it is not easy to explain this well.

I use the 'play the position against Crafty' option when I see a other candidate move and wonder why this would not work. Many times the refutation of other candidate moves is more complex than the actual answer.
alice02 33 ( +1 | -1 )
different versions We must have different versions - in mine you definitely take the knight with the rook.

I agree. the difficulty is that you puzzle over a move because you can see a counter move - but CT Art blithely tells you to make it because it demonstrates a principle of chess. So you make the wrong move for the right reason - or is it the other way round?:)
naamloos 48 ( +1 | -1 )
Mistake I have also discovered a mistake in a Ct-art problem, in this one the third move is checkmate, but it only counts as right if you do it with a pawn while another checkmate with the rook is taken as wrong. Surely, esthetics can't be taken into account here in percieving something as wrong or right.
Its problem 305, I think, or at least in that neaberhood. It does not seem unlikely that there are more faults in the program, especially in the more difficult combinations.
ccmcacollister 109 ( +1 | -1 )
naamloos ... Interesting about choosing 'the Wrong MATE' ...
I didn't know there COULD be a Wrong Checkmate!! :))) -chuckling~and shaking head- .................................................................
***
Makes me wonder if perhaps it is an offshoot of the generalization to
'Capture first with the least valuable unit' when exchanging.
{Which I've always thought to be not of very great use, since surely I'd want to check into the particulars of a capture/combination anyway; unless very bad time pressure perhaps. But who would be so lazy as to generalize a combination ??!}
***
It makes me wonder now if there is supposed to be some greater aethetic appeal to mating with the lowest possible unit?!
While I must admit finding it enjoyable to deliver Mate with a pawn; or a knight that smothers or Checks and covers the flight square simultaneously; still I find it more satisfying that way to have a good Discovered-Double-Check. Or more so still to be able to play " 0-0-0 Checkmate" {Only having ever had a single occurance} .
***
HAS anyone heard of a 'MATE with the unit of lowest value' Principle of Chess ?!
***
}8-)