@Solipsisms:
I cant say anything about that because my puzzles are rated between 2200-2500 all the time. I cant remember that I had to solve a puzzle higher rated than close to 2500 if I remember correctly, although my settings are on "difficult" since a while.
(I already made a thread in feedback forum about this theme)
Best wishes
Nada
@hatchet:
I cant remember a wrong or really bad puzzle. In a few cases I played another winning move and failed with it but this was always for a reason. Either my move was not as simple/fast as the right solution or totally wrong and even losing on the spot.
Maybe I am just lucky and I will have to face all the bad puzzles everybody is talking about later on.... hope not!
Best wishes
Nada
Agree with #10.
The idea of up- und downvoting puzzles is a good one in order to maintain the database and make the good puzzles more often seen than the bad ones. Still, it has obvious flaws, described in this thread. This could only be solved if there were some volunteers editing them manually and erase the flawed ones.
Same with the opening puzzles, only worse since the majority of those doesn't make much sense. An opening training section is a nice feature, but there is only so much you can achieve with generating these things automatically.
#12 I think what you describe is basically the problem: In many of the puzzles there are winning moves that include a pattern the human brain picks up immediately, but unfortunately there are faster, less obvious wins available. So often when you see a solution in the puzzles you have to force yourself to sit on your hands for another minute and check if there isnt a quicker one.
They should count as alternatives, but they don't. That is the real problem.
@scoreman:
but thats an essential part of a good training: sit on your hands and try to figure out "new" things, new ideas and new ways to handle given problems.
Only to rattle some already known stuff is not the way to improve.... at least I think its not.
Best wishes
Nada
@hatchet:
If the alternatives are almost as good as the main solution I think there is already a second chance available.
But your are right: I also think that there could be more alternatives given as a second chance. On the other hand this would probably reduce the motivation to look carefully before making your move...
Best wishes
Nada
The essential part of tactics training is pattern learning, pattern recognition and of course calculating. I would be happy to have to find and learn unknown patterns in order to solve puzzles.
Solving a puzzle with what i know already and then checking every time "hey, i've got it, but is there be a quicker solution?" is tiring and does not have a training effect.
I agree with scoreman. Tactics which are high rated here on lichess mostly are difficult because people play a slightly inferior alternative. Puzzles on chesstempo are difficult because they actually are.
If you play a mate in 5 instead of a mate in 3, you shouldn't fail the problem. That's completely ridiculous.
Just let the problem say: Good move, look for a better one.