After doing 30 problems, my rating is at about 2100.
Supposedly, you can take 20 minutes per problem (which is completely unrealistic for G/90 unless you want to purposely blunder in time pressure, so for that it would be useful to), but I am averaging less than 10 minutes.
Honestly, at first I was blowing through them, so if one of the choices was not a move I would have made, then I quickly chose one of the moves given. Well, after dropping a piece en-prise on move 1 I paid more attention to the choices given.
I don’t think that I am doing great, am being rather superficial about it, really wanting to get the lesson out of it, so I am surprised that I would be rated so high since last time I took the Tactics Exam, my rating came out to be below 1600, and I thought I was on top of it back then…hmmm.
Also, I want to say thanks to Paul Anderson for including a nice shout-out in his blog about my website. 🙂
This post isn’t modest, and may seem sickening, but I am just saying this is the score that the book is giving me, and I am not trying to fudge anything or not deduct points. I think it’s probably just a nice book and I should ignore the ratings, since I burn through chessbooks mostly to get the knowledge or skill from them.
In this last set of problems, my rating dropped down to 1816. Curiously, if I had “preferred” the same way as the author does, that would have gotten me 19 more points, or 2116 rating. For example, one problem white is up a pawn in rook ending with pawns on both sides; I see winning ideas, but he says that White is only better, so I lose out on 5 points, then for Black “1…Rd7 is ok (1 point), but I prefer 1…Rd8 (5 points).” So, I just got 1/10 on that problem, because my perception was somehow off. This can happen quite a bit on these problems.