I don't think someone that get 3/4 right should lose as many points as somenone that get their first move wrong...
meh
Crearly someone that gets 3/4 knows more about openings than the other case. I think both cases should get a 'failed', but the one with 3/4 should lose less points...
Well you are not wrong, but that would just complicate the scoring system for no good reason?
Someone who loses to Kasparov in 50 moves also knows more about chess than someone who loses to Kasparov in 10 moves but in terms of ELO adjustment it would be treated the same for simplicity reasons?
Someone who loses to Kasparov in 50 moves also knows more about chess than someone who loses to Kasparov in 10 moves but in terms of ELO adjustment it would be treated the same for simplicity reasons?
^ That, and even if it does adjust the rating change, I imagine it would be minimal and negligible.
@Neverness, yeah, they could compromise by considering it a "draw" if you get at least half.
Anyway, since they likely won't mess with the established rating scheme, would be nice if they instead add a counter coupled with a histogram which might serve as a more appealing incentive metric.
On the other hand, openings are things that we do again and again in games and yet this trainer (I'm just guessing) will only present you with one instance of each "puzzle". That's not really as helpful as it possibly could be for training I think.
Anyway, since they likely won't mess with the established rating scheme, would be nice if they instead add a counter coupled with a histogram which might serve as a more appealing incentive metric.
On the other hand, openings are things that we do again and again in games and yet this trainer (I'm just guessing) will only present you with one instance of each "puzzle". That's not really as helpful as it possibly could be for training I think.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.