The majority of Chess.com's puzzles are SO stupid!

Tell me about it

My parents explaining why the american education system makes us unfilial and unrespectful unlike the educaton they went through as a child

Can it grammar Nazi.

End game puzzles are rated 25 times higher than bullet. They come from bullet endgames that play to the end and not timeout.

I'm rated 1800 (not much though) at puzzles and sometime i just wonder wtf happened, means you have the excellent option to defend but you blundered wtffffff. Like today i played puzzle where My rook which was protected by bishop tried to attack queen, now there was option to take my queen, but computer took rook and gone by bishop.(NON SENSE).

If you can't figure out why, check the analysis. There certainly would have been a very good reason for the solution.

This is a major example of a misrated problem (seriously, I don't even know how it got rated 450 AFTER BEING LOWERED FROM 2894 LIKE WHAT IS THIS LOGIC)

https://www.chess.com/puzzles/problem/1183628

Asking about this.

This has been changed to 2500

I have come across puzzles in wich the position is fairly equal- you need to see your opponents bluder- how? how am i supposed to predict a stupid blunder?

Example please.

You never will find useful those difficult puzzles. The puzzles are only to test your preparation. To master a theme puzzles or to play survival rush is the way to open your eyes while playing and losing a simple opportunity in your games!

The position is always going to have a best first move, regardless of what the opponent does. In some cases, the defense chosen will be done to present a specific tactical idea but even with a better defense the initial move should still be winning.
There may be rare instances where that isn't the case and a bad puzzle made it into the system and in those cases they should be reported.

My site puzzle rating. 1. Chesstempo. 2. Chess com. 3.Lichess. Lichess puzzles are free, but the quality is lacking. Chess.com puzzles are behind a paywall, if you want to do more than 3 a day. This site has also tweaked its puzzle program twice in the last decade, I originally topped out around 1800 and am now 2800, a ridiculous jump in rating that did not happen because I magically improved. The tweaks made it impossible to track improvement over time and are, in my opinion, designed to artificially elevate ratings to make members feel good about themselves. Chesstempo is free, its algorithm has not changed, and overall the puzzles are of higher quality than chess.com and Lichess.

Stupid is a harsh word. I have only done about 500 of the puzzles so far and I often had to ignore the computer’s rating in order to use them as a learning tool. Is there somewhere in the explanation of these tools that says the rating system should not be taken too seriously? More specifically, what is quite challenging about these puzzles is how poorly the computer does at rating a solution. (Maybe it should not be about right or wrong, but what works and what doesn’t work from a training perspective.) Were chess.com to consider having another tool similar to Puzzles that wasn’t so black and white (no pun) with regards to training success. For example, in an end game puzzle with only 6 pieces on the board, maybe moving your King to one square or another (when the choice may only give you a slight disadvantage) shouldn't be treated like a complete failure with a -16 penalty. Or if you decide you want a hint in a multi-move mid game scenario, (because you are just here for learning!), you should not be rated at all, rather than being scolded with a -16 for “cheating”. I have found that a few of the puzzles had the computer making non-intuitive counter moves which makes that solution moot. Especially in an early or mid game puzzle, the computer should recognize that there may be a difference between a perfect move versus an excellent or simply a good one, and not penalize for “acceptable but not correct”. In my opinion, it is all about how good the Puzzle game is as a teaching tool; with the rating system being so Draconian, and especially in the Golden Age of AI, I feel it is unfortunately not too helpful. But there I go again acting like the “rating” system needs to be taken seriously.

If you can't solve a puzzle, that's fine. There are some tactics which are extremely rare in-game that you might not have experience with. What's important to remember is that the computer is always smarter than you. A puzzle may be "bad" as in impractical, but it is never "wrong". Sometimes the puzzle will feature moves that look like blunders. They aren't. The computer has simply decided that, for instance, sacrificing a queen for a check, will slightly extend its life.

One complaint I do have is that in some puzzles, there are moves that win almost as quick as the solution and are easy to see. Why not make a M3 in a M2 puzzle give you a few points?

This is absolutely not how puzzles work. In a puzzle, there is only 1 move that wins, all the other moves throw away the win. There is no move that's “acceptable but not correct”. If you find one, that puzzle is broken and should be reported.

I can agree with you in some cases. But in many where I feel this way, its kind of training you to make better decisions. Like I will take a free queen but blunder checkmate where a stronger player would checkmate so to become stronger you need to learn to make a different decision.

In others I feel like the puzzle want you to play a certain position and it will lead you to a slightly advantageous position say 1.2 where as the move you wanted to play would be 0.9. Both are winning, but the one you played felt like it lead to a more natural playing progression. In this case, I think the puzzle should do a better job of saying why this move should be played to avoid this feeling of "acceptable but correct".

If this ever happens, you should report the puzzle for being broken.

That said, you are 99.9% to be just wrong,

the 4000 puzzles are so broken even me (300 blitz) can do them with just a few arrows