chess.emrald finickyness: dedicated to generalkaia
another way to look at it:
2006-07-24 09:37:47, 1514 solved ( 9.0 secs.) p37345 1578
2006-07-24 09:37:25, 1514 solved (11.9 secs.) p35069 1530
2006-07-24 09:23:32, 1513 solved ( 3.4 secs.) p28991 1490
2006-07-24 09:23:08, 1514 solved (17.4 secs.) p11244 1469
2006-07-24 09:22:38, 1514 solved (16.8 secs.) p06516 1513
2006-07-24 09:22:09, 1513 solved ( 4.2 secs.) p47204 1460
2006-07-24 09:21:46, 1514 solved (51.0 secs.) p33291 1595
2006-07-24 09:20:43, 1514 solved (11.7 secs.) p45822 1560
2006-07-24 09:20:20, 1516 solved (56.3 secs.) p15373 1425
2006-07-24 09:19:11, 1516 solved (11.9 secs.) p26461 1632
2006-07-24 09:18:09, 1516 solved (14.6 secs.) p21419 1635
2006-07-24 09:17:42, 1516 solved ( 9.3 secs.) p09854 1485
2006-07-24 09:17:22, 1517 solved (18.2 secs.) p49840 1493
2006-07-24 09:16:50, 1516 solved (13.5 secs.) p45977 1658
2006-07-24 09:16:23, 1517 solved (13.0 secs.) p11353 1469
2006-07-24 09:15:26, 1516 solved ( 3.7 secs.) p60663 1402
2006-07-24 09:15:06, 1515 solved ( 6.8 secs.) p06677 1584
2006-07-24 09:14:47, 1513 solved ( 3.1 secs.) p44338 1558
2006-07-24 09:14:31, 1512 solved ( 5.5 secs.) p36761 1554
2006-07-23 11:12:31, 1510 solved ( 2.7 secs.) p34376 1550
2006-07-23 11:07:13, 1509 solved ( 4.9 secs.) p02591 1593
2006-07-23 11:06:52, 1509 solved (10.6 secs.) p41723 1597
if you view Temposchlucker, SpaceCowboy, Trallala, ChessDog, etc, you will see the exact same thing, often much better than this in success and/or difficulty.
2006-07-24 09:37:47, 1514 solved ( 9.0 secs.) p37345 1578
2006-07-24 09:37:25, 1514 solved (11.9 secs.) p35069 1530
2006-07-24 09:23:32, 1513 solved ( 3.4 secs.) p28991 1490
2006-07-24 09:23:08, 1514 solved (17.4 secs.) p11244 1469
2006-07-24 09:22:38, 1514 solved (16.8 secs.) p06516 1513
2006-07-24 09:22:09, 1513 solved ( 4.2 secs.) p47204 1460
2006-07-24 09:21:46, 1514 solved (51.0 secs.) p33291 1595
2006-07-24 09:20:43, 1514 solved (11.7 secs.) p45822 1560
2006-07-24 09:20:20, 1516 solved (56.3 secs.) p15373 1425
2006-07-24 09:19:11, 1516 solved (11.9 secs.) p26461 1632
2006-07-24 09:18:09, 1516 solved (14.6 secs.) p21419 1635
2006-07-24 09:17:42, 1516 solved ( 9.3 secs.) p09854 1485
2006-07-24 09:17:22, 1517 solved (18.2 secs.) p49840 1493
2006-07-24 09:16:50, 1516 solved (13.5 secs.) p45977 1658
2006-07-24 09:16:23, 1517 solved (13.0 secs.) p11353 1469
2006-07-24 09:15:26, 1516 solved ( 3.7 secs.) p60663 1402
2006-07-24 09:15:06, 1515 solved ( 6.8 secs.) p06677 1584
2006-07-24 09:14:47, 1513 solved ( 3.1 secs.) p44338 1558
2006-07-24 09:14:31, 1512 solved ( 5.5 secs.) p36761 1554
2006-07-23 11:12:31, 1510 solved ( 2.7 secs.) p34376 1550
2006-07-23 11:07:13, 1509 solved ( 4.9 secs.) p02591 1593
2006-07-23 11:06:52, 1509 solved (10.6 secs.) p41723 1597
if you view Temposchlucker, SpaceCowboy, Trallala, ChessDog, etc, you will see the exact same thing, often much better than this in success and/or difficulty.
posted by transformation at 12:28 AM
4 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
just checked your blog, some entertaining rambling you have going on. :) I try to keep mine pretty much free of creative writing and sidepaths, and as more of a documentation for my 'chess life'. but yours is more fun to read.
about people doing CTS with very low percentage, there's quite a lot of examples that show the counter effects of it. like luna with 52%, who was at low 1300's when I was at 1200's, and hasn't improved at all. I think he has done around 20 000 problems since then, if I remember right. and he has done CTS almost daily, with no bigger breaks as far as I've noticed. clyk is another obvious one, going from 1520 to 1520 in 88 000 problems. although I think I noticed him only from the 20 000 or so, but that's still a lot sweat for no progress.
although I've also spotted some with 90+ percentages who also haven't improved much during my time. for some, the problem probably lies in too few problems. I think quantity is one big factor here, although it alone is not enough. but those with a lot of problems AND a high percentage and still not much progress just leave me wondering.
my pure guess about it is, that if getting high percentage means you're not getting enough quantity, it'll be inefficient for fast solving. but probably still effects your slow calculation positively.
so, that's why I aim for 80-85 percentage but not 90+. not guessing, but not calculating thoroughly either. I try to focus very intensively on the problems, and work out the failed ones afterwards. so far I've gained almost 500 pts, and it's still working for me, so I'll just continue the same way. -I've got a lot of pressure from stronger friends to focus on slow tactics, and they have a point there, but hey, don't fix it as long as it's working. :)
one thing more about crossing even hudreds. -I always end up having problems with percentage when I cross even hundreds. 1500 has not been any different in this regard. I guess I always start to press on when the rating is in danger to fall under, resulting in bad percentages. but now I seem to have gotten properly at around 1520, so I hope to get my session percentages back up. It's very hard to ignore the rating completely.
dear wormstar, i am VERY, VERY glad to hear from you. thank you. communicating, or rather being ABLE to communicate with you time to time is important to me, since our approach is so similar and we are so close excepting quantity or "problems solved", which of coarse i will remedy in time.
im glad that you understand: "ok. let me see if ive got this right. you are in some kind of frenetic race to see how many problems you can do, just hoping somehow to just catch the system right and boost your rating? and youve done like, what, 20, 30,000, or 90,000 problems and repeat the same mistakes, or have not yet incorporated all these mistaken instances into new levels of problem solving?"
irony aside, i really appreciate what you do. you are one of the persons who "gets it".
im intrigued by your idea of 80 to 85%. i sit with a piece of paper, like a school test with lots of rows of ten, then twenty, fifty, etc. blank circles which i fill in. when i break into a new integer or new nearest decimil, i carefully watch when it happens to record it, since im usually within one or two problems of knowing when it will happen.
i, too can get 88 to 92% about half the time, but it is indeed slow.
and, again, you understand exactly. you discuss this floor phenomenon, supported or stabilized by low RD. i struggled VERY hard to hit 1500, which i did two or three times, once for months at a time only to crash, but now im stable at 1505-1515. trusting the rating process here. but when i hit the low, im extra carefull but try to go fast too! and as i did last night, tried SO hard to go past 1518 like an Everest climber in the "death zone" (>28,000 feet or 8,000 meters, where the body begins to die and oxygen to the brain lacking, rapidly deminishes judgement), but couldnt do it, but i dearly wanted to finish high. instead, i used the rest of the problems for stear the car back in the road, a bad spate of problems where i got 9/11=20 or nine wrong, eleven right, and totals twenty, so had to sit and get them all right for a ways and gladly not stay at 83.4 ("loose it") and got back to 83.5 or 83.4501! such a tough go it was!
its very hot here. in the pacific northwest, a place supposedly like sweeden, norway, or finland only USA, but President Bush reassures us that there is no global warming! its just random brownian movement.
Interesting site. Useful information. Bookmarked.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home