Sunday, October 07, 2007

Level 40, rep 4 done at 90%

I finished the 4th rep of level 40 today at 90%. I'm at the end of 3 weeks, so I'm going back to level 10. Since I was out of town for about 4.5 days during these 3 weeks, I don't feel bad about the time taken. However, I need to speed up a bit if I'm going to move beyond level 40 in the 3 weeks.
/------------------------------\
| Level 1 2 3 4 |
|------------------------------|
| 10 97% 99% 99% 100% |
| 20 92% 94% 95% 98% |
| 30 86% 86% 86% 92% |
| 40 77% 77% 84% 90% |
\------------------------------/

Scoring over 90% on the first 4 levels feels like an accomplishment. But I also feel so far away from being able to see the variations fly through my mind for many of the problems. This is what IM Ziatdinov says it should be like after really learning a position.


Does this software exist?

Given that everyone who attacks a set of chess problems seems to find some errors in the set, I wonder about a software that allows the user to edit the problems. Even better would be a program that would accept an entire problem set and score you according to the definitions in the set. That way, someone could work on producing a very good problem set where the user interface and progress tracking are already taken care of. If the length of the problems is unrestricted, you could even make solitaire chess games for it.

Does this exist and I just haven't found it yet?

Labels:

8 Comments:

At 1:34 AM, Blogger transformation said...

nice going man. this must work wonders for real chess...

BTW, my CT-Art is now on hold again, first working too many days in a row at my job, so shorter episodic CTS a lot more palpable, but then had/have the flu, so no traction.

i am always happy to see you post further and never fail to read.

best regards, dk

 
At 10:12 AM, Anonymous Sciurus said...

You were asking about tactics training software that allows you to edit the problem set. One of the SCID forks, scid-pg has a training feature with a couple of tactics problems. I never tried them myself, but the problems are just a database that can be modified. Also, even the pgn viewer I use for my blog (ltpgnviewer, see here) can be used to do problems provided you have a problem set. I believe the biggest problem is to generate a nice set of chess problems, not so much the software to do it.

 
At 12:20 PM, Blogger Loomis said...

Sciurus, thanks for the tip. It's hard to tell since I don't have the program, but it looks like it has some significant drawbacks. From what I can tell from the manual about the the way the tactics problems work is that only the starting position is stored. You make a move and the built in crafty engine determines if it was best.

What would be great is if the entire problem was stored, the starting position, the winning move, the whole winning variation and subvariations, possibly a scoring system, or anything else that defines a chess problem. I could see this as an extension of pgn. If there was a good definition for a tactics problem in pgn, it would be straightforward for programs like scid to display, score, and track your progress.

In my imagination, there would be a program like CT-Art for which anyone could write problems and if you're working on a problem and find a flaw you would have options like "remove problem", "add subvariation", or "correct solution".

 
At 1:52 PM, Blogger Blue Devil Knight said...

This would be a huge boon for Convekta users. I know of no software that is good for this kind of thing. CT-Art is the best, bar none, but as you point out needs help (gosh, the level 90 problems must be crazy riddled with equally good alternative lines).

As anyone tried emailing Convekta about this sort of thing?

 
At 2:33 PM, Blogger likesforests said...

Regarding, "I stopped studying GM games because they are too hard, or rather, it takes too much time to do it right." I know what you mean. Analyzing an endgame in depth takes me 4 hours. Analyzing an entire GM game completely could take a day.

I decided to strike a balance. Each day I go through a few games at 10min/game. Once per week, I pick a single endgame and spend 2+ hours on it. I doubt this is the most efficient method, but it's fun and keeps me in motion, which long-term is perhaps more important than absolute efficiency. :)

 
At 11:48 PM, Blogger Loomis said...

BDK: A boon indeed. Even if there was just an agreed upon standard for problems like there is for games (pgn), you'd see a handful of softwares for organizing, solving, and tracking your problems just like you see a handful of pgn viewers. There's nothing really special about Convekta other than they've put the effort in to do all this themselves.

 
At 11:54 PM, Blogger Loomis said...

Likesforests: I distinctly remember writing that, but now I can't even remember where or when.

I have studied GM games in the past and my opinion is that they're great. You get to see an opening played properly, you get to see real strategy in action, and there are so many hidden tactics to keep you busy for hours.

That's just the problem, one game takes me a whole day. That would put me a day behind on my tactics schedule.

To be honest, I am beginning to abhor this dedication to learning the CT-Art problem set. I've got good books sitting on my shelf that I want to read. I want to study GM games. It seems every week or two I see another review for a book and I want it. I know I've seen this sentiment from other people involved in some silly tactical schedule.

 
At 11:38 AM, Blogger Blue Devil Knight said...

CT-Art to rule them all,
CT-Art to find them,
CT-Art to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them

Near the end there I was really feeling like Frodo. But now it feels nice to have a tactical baseline I can keep sharp with. But just as you said, there was a pile of books building up I wanted to read. And now that I'm done, I just want to take a break for a few days.

COme to think of it, I should be at work or celebrating, not reading chess blogs!!!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home