Uri,
I don't think you can draw any conclusions for 3 reasons:
1) Three tournament games is nothing. You can't make any conclusions from that small a sample.
2) Tactics training should be only one part of preparation for tournaments. Maybe 25% of it. There is also opening study, endgame study, middlegame strategy, and positional chess. Your results might even get worse if you take time away from those other topics to do mostly tactics.
3) As Richard mentioned you have done almost 20,000 problems on CTS, 90 times as many as here on CT! So it is not logical to conclude anything about CT. Any conclusions should be about your CTS training.
If you want to conclude that your tournament play is worse (which you can't conclude from 3 games), then the most logical conclusion is that doing thousands of blitz problems on CTS has made it worse. That promotes superficial calculation which is well-known to hurt tournament performance.
1)I agree about 1
2)I did not train about opening but only about tactics because I have more fun with it.
Avoiding tactical mistakes could clearly cause me to get better results and even if I get inferior position in the opening then I still believe that it is hard to beat me in case that I only know to avoid tactical errors(the main problem is that I fail in the last task of avoiding tactical errors in inferior positions).
In the first game that I lost I simply lost a pawn because of not seeing the only move that save the pawn(I considered that move for a second and thought that it is losing a pawn but I was wrong and it was an illusion).
The position was slightly better for my opponent but I believe that I could at least get a draw in case of finding the right move.
Later I also failed in finding the best defence when I was a pawn down.
In the second loss I got inferior position out of the opening that I did not evaluate correctly but my opponent lost most of his advantage and again I believe that I could get at least a draw by avoiding tactical mistakes.
I think that my mistake was also that I decided to try to win in the opening so I generated some position that I thought that is less clear that was simply better for my opponent when I did not understand it instead of playing for a draw against a player with better rating.
Inspite of it I think that the main problem in that game was that in time trouble I did not like move X when I had only few minutes to finish the game(with 30 seconds increasement) so I played move Y that was even worse without checking it.
I do not think that solving problems cause me to be weaker but only that it did not help.
The main problem is that even CTS problems are usually not problems of avoiding losing a pawn blunders that I consider as one of the most important blunders in chess and they include only cases when there is a single move not to lose that are not always the cases when I blunder.
3)The fact that I improved my standard rating contradicts the opinion that I
use superficial calculation.
Note also that in the last 2 weeks I used more CT relative to CTS because I have fun with improving my rating and I find it easier to improve my standard rating in CT relative to improving my rating in CTS.
I think that you can also say that training in CT can encourage thinking
for too much time because there is no time limit and my main problem is not playing too fast and maybe I tend to play too slowly.
Uri
