So I came here with the goal of improving my game (and to satisfy my chess craving at any hour of the day). I had been about the same level for a long time prior to joining due to around 6 years of not playing. In my final exams in 2016, I was looking for something constructive to do with the time that I wasn't studying. I always loved chess but I could never find anyone to play with, then said exams prompted my discovery of online chess. It has honestly changed my life.
I started tactics training. I would do puzzles on Lichess when I was bored. My calculation abilities have vastly improved. My instinct for the correct move has been much more accurate than usual. A lot of the calculation of potential variations I do these days is to check my instinct, whereas before this was never the case.
Excellent players? No1? Duchess? What has been your experience?
Chess is 99% tactics - Richard Teichmann. How true is this statement?
I know this is chess related, but the chess forum looks really dead and there are far worse threads in the debates section.
Another player on the chess forums (I think it might've been 64 Squares of Pain) said he'd been doing tactics training constantly and, it didn't improve his chess. So I think it depends the player.
Tactics training definitely helps with your ability to analyze a chess board. However, there's one key difference between tactics and a real game: in tactics, you know that there's only one correct answer for that position, and therefore, you're looking for that once specific move. In an actual game, most people don't usually expect that their current position is one that has a specific "correct" move, like a given position during tactics training. A person has to realize that they've arrived at a position with that one killer move, and look for it.
Obviously, enough tactics training can help you be more aware of when such a "tactical" position has arrived, more often. I think tactics usually helps people when they remember seeing a position on a board they've had during tactics training.
Originally posted by @vivifyYeah, there is a huge difference between playing a normal game and knowing that there is a tactic. This is why I think most tests that measure ELO cause inflated ratings - most are 100% based on tactics so players know that they exist in the positions. More accurate is having a test that makes you input what you think is the best move - and there often is no tactic in the position.
Another player on the chess forums (I think it might've been 64 Squares of Pain) said he'd been doing tactics training constantly and, it didn't improve his chess. So I think it depends the player.
Tactics training definitely helps with your ability to analyze a chess board. However, there's one key difference between tactics and a real game: in tactics ...[text shortened]... lps people when they remember seeing a position on a board they've seen during tactics training.
E.G http://www.elometer.net/
There are infinite tactics, which I found surprising. Having done hundreds upon hundreds of them, I am always amazed at how new patterns always seem to present themselves.
Originally posted by @ashiitakaComputers are better than the best humans solely because of tactics.
So I came here with the goal of improving my game (and to satisfy my chess craving at any hour of the day). I had been about the same level for a long time prior to joining due to around 6 years of not playing. In my final exams in 2016, I was looking for something constructive to do with the time that I wasn't studying. I always loved chess but I could n ...[text shortened]... d, but the chess forum looks really dead and there are far worse threads in the debates section.
Tactics are the fireworks in chess, fun to play and fun to watch; but as one plays stronger and stronger players, one cannot expect to win by a sudden tactical knockout any more. Stronger players will not make the sorts of mistakes which make a sudden tactical knockout possible.
Reti observed that the way a person learns chess tends to mimic the way chess mastery developed historically: first tactics, then positional-strategic thinking -- Anderson, Morphy, Steinitz, etc. Studying tactics won’t be a waste of time, but someday you will want to move on to the next thing. Carry on from wherever you are and move on when you are ready. Get a good book on strategic thinking; you won't look back.