Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Low Rated vs High Rated Problems - What's the Real Difference?

  • 11-08-2017 11:03am
    #1
    mariaevinne
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭


    I've been trying to understand, in a general sense, what the practical difference is between low rated and high rated problems.  In other words: what makes a given tactical position more difficult to solve than another?  Aren't all winning tactical positions fundamentally the same?  I say "winning tactical positions" because in a game you are not ensured that a position is winning, but on CT you know that any problem in front of you has a winning line (or more than one if there are alternates).
    So, I've been going through a personal set of all problems rated <1000 in order to get more practice with basic winning tactical positions.  What I'm beginning to notice when comparing this set to the standard rating set is that the "harder" problems are those that either present the threat of a basic winning tactic (such as forks, pins, skewers etc, that will win significant material or checkmate) after a certain combination AND (usually) have multiple other lines to rule out before making a selection.  But I'm not sure this truly captures the general difference either.
    Any other thoughts?  What makes higher rated problems more subtle?


Comments

  • #2
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    In any position, there's only 20/30 moves max, so it's certainly inevitable that complicated positions share patterns with straightforward positions.

    I think the main issue is depth. It's easy to spot a fork when it's on the board in front of you, but not so easy to see that it caps a tactic five moves down the line. Longer lines also increase the chance of missing an escape for your opponent, or maybe you only find four of the five winning lines based on your opponent's possible replies.

    Counterplay is another. You might move a piece in for unstoppable mate in one - but does that allow your opponent get a perpetual? Or even by way of a couple of checks, they could manoeuvre a piece to defend mate.

    The quiet move is often tricky too. I've done some tactical problems (about 2000 strength, though that obviously doesn't correlate to ICU rating) where the key move is to move your king to safety first, or to follow up an obvious check with a quiet pawn move, which indicates your opponent actually has no good moves at all.

    So while the great thing about chess is that nothing is hidden or physically impossible, the frustrating thing about it is that nothing is hidden - the only thing that can go wrong is stuff you could have seen but didn't. The more depth you add to a position, the more chance of going wrong, and so the trickier it becomes


Advertisement