Hello!
I am wondering why many of the really great tactic puzzles (rated above 2200) I get have only so few points (around 100-200 or even less).
These puzzles are awesome and I just dont get it!
If I fail than its in most cases due to my fault and not due to a wrong or bad solution of the puzzle.
Best wishes
Nada
Puzzles aren't voted for being "wrong/bad" but for being interesting - as the tooltip says.
@alleey:
I understand your point. I thought most of the puzzles are indeed interesting (because in many cases not the obvious moves are easily winning) but maybe its just my impression.
Best wishes
Nada
There's a ton of reasons why people upvote/downvote.
As for me, I
1) Upvote interesting, clever puzzles; downvote puzzles, which bear no educational value.
2) Downvote puzzles, which are obviously wrong or have alternatives which are no worse than the mainline.
3) sometimes downvote puzzles, where material advantage is so ridiculous that practically any move is winning and I don't feel like finding the shortest mate. (Neither I got OCD nor I'm a perfectionist, sorry).
I believe a decent amount of people downvote puzzles they failed and didn't figure out why.
In my opinion all puzzles are interesting. Why? Because if someone fails it (not necessarily me) means he/she missed something on chess' understanding, thus making the puzzle interesting
The main reason is that harder puzzles get played less. Less traffic, less up votes.
@pita96:
Thats a good attitude!
@DVRazor:
I do it like you. I also believe that maybe there are a bunch of people downvoting because they are frustrated by their own failure.
I found out that in many cases if I failed my idea was indeed wrong. Only in some cases my suggestion was also playable but always not as good as the main solution given by the puzzle. So my impression at least at the moment is that most puzzles are really good.
Best wishes
Nada
Also want to point out, almost all of the 2600/2700 puzzles that I see are negative points. Reason for this, is that the puzzle typically are pretty bad ones.
Elaborating on this, is that there are tons of moves that win, doesn't make the puzzle that interesting when 3 lines are +4 (all count as mistakes) and there's one obscure line that's +5
"Elaborating on this, is that there are tons of moves that win, doesn't make the puzzle that interesting when 3 lines are +4 (all count as mistakes) and there's one obscure line that's +5"
When the instructions say, "find any winning move" instead of "find the best move," this will be a valid criticism.
First of all: not any given problem is a good problem.
Let's look at an example from math:
If you have a ridiculously large term you ought to factorize and you make one slight mistake and someone else gets this right, it doesn't mean this person is better at math. It could in fact be the case, that the other person will never get beyond factorizing in math, whereas the guy who failed the problem has a much deeper understanding of the subject (perhaps he even studies math).
If you haven't already realized that the puzzle section on lichess is, frankly, half bullshit, you either haven't gotten to the tougher ones or haven't had the luxury to solve good puzzles.
I do admit, 1/10 of the really high rated ones do have a very good point and it's a pity that people downvote those puzzles.
I'm not claiming for myself to solve all of those difficult, good puzzles, but I think I do admit a lot more often than many people on lichess, that I was wrong with my solution and the given one is better. That has to do with a lot of things:
Many people on lichess don't have the competence to judge how good a difficult problem is. That is where democracy fails and nobody wants to say that out loud.
I wouldn't let somebody with a 1900 problem rating judge a 2600 problem. He won't get it anyway.
