But that doesn't answer the question... How is it possible to get over 2000 on tactics training...which we are told is 95% of chess...but be unable to break 1500 in game play?

This is a generalized question, not intended for you in particular...except that your particular experience may shed some light on the matter.

I got up to about 1800 on chess tactics. Then they replaced the puzzles with different ones. Now I am having difficulty in getting above 1500. I do believe that I will get back to 1800...but only after a lot of work.

Tactics training, seems to me, requires the one perfect combination...and to get it in blitz timing. In regular game play, one might get a good, playable combination...let's say, win the Q but didn't get the mate...and go on to win.

Also, in TT, if it takes an extra 20 or 30 seconds to get the exact, perfect combo...your goose is cooked and you might just as well have gotten the absolute worst answer.

And there is more...

Maybe one gets really good at the tactical puzzles from repeated play...I see the same puzzles repeat...whereby one knows the right answer immediately (the smothered mate by knight is one of them) and the rating goes up.

Yet, in real play, you rarely see most of these tactical situations...and you don't have knowledge as to how to create them...and if you don't know openings or endings because you spent 95% of your time practicing tactics...well, then, you are screwed.

So...what can you tell me from your experience? Thanks.

P.S:

What constitutes a bad chess player? Maybe it's someone who plays like a pro during "book" while using a database in correspondence chess but falls off a cliff on the first move out of book.

Or the 2,500 tactical training whiz who falls for opening traps, every time, such as fool's mate or scholar's mate because he didn't feel it necessary to learn openings.

Or the guy who loses in the endgame when it is K with 2 pawns and the enemy who only has K and 1 pawn...because he spent 95% of his time practicing midgame tactics and didn't think end game calculations mattered.

Yeah...I know these aren't funny. But, they are sad.

I'm starting to think that spending a lot of time on tactical puzzles is helpful...but it sure isn't the "95%". That's just a big, fat lie.

Just three more moves than a fool's mate.

If you don't mind my asking...

You are over 2,000 in tactical training...and it looks like you did a lot of hard work to get there...yet you are only 1259 in standard play.

What gives? The tactical training isn't the 95% of chess, as advertised? 

P.S.: I ask because I have a few theories of my own.

"Tactics flow from a superior position"
(Bobby Fischer)

But that doesn't answer the question... How is it possible to get over 2000 on tactics training...which we are told is 95% of chess...but be unable to break 1500 in game play?

This is a generalized question, not intended for you in particular...except that your particular experience may shed some light on the matter.

I got up to about 1800 on chess tactics. Then they replaced the puzzles with different ones. Now I am having difficulty in getting above 1500. I do believe that I will get back to 1800...but only after a lot of work.

Tactics training, seems to me, requires the one perfect combination...and to get it in blitz timing. In regular game play, one might get a good, playable combination...let's say, win the Q but didn't get the mate...and go on to win.

Also, in TT, if it takes an extra 20 or 30 seconds to get the exact, perfect combo...your goose is cooked and you might just as well have gotten the absolute worst answer.

And there is more...

Maybe one gets really good at the tactical puzzles from repeated play...I see the same puzzles repeat...whereby one knows the right answer immediately (the smothered mate by knight is one of them) and the rating goes up.

Yet, in real play, you rarely see most of these tactical situations...and you don't have knowledge as to how to create them...and if you don't know openings or endings because you spent 95% of your time practicing tactics...well, then, you are screwed.

So...what can you tell me from your experience? Thanks.

P.S:

What constitutes a bad chess player? Maybe it's someone who plays like a pro during "book" while using a database in correspondence chess but falls off a cliff on the first move out of book.

Or the 2,500 tactical training whiz who falls for opening traps, every time, such as fool's mate or scholar's mate because he didn't feel it necessary to learn openings.

Or the guy who loses in the endgame when it is K with 2 pawns and the enemy who only has K and 1 pawn...because he spent 95% of his time practicing midgame tactics and didn't think end game calculations mattered.

Yeah...I know these aren't funny. But, they are sad.

I'm starting to think that spending a lot of time on tactical puzzles is helpful...but it sure isn't the "95%". That's just a big, fat lie.

 no thats just a sign your king is an alcoholic

either that or he has been mated

a few times

but back on topic, you thick that the scholars mate is worth using against a 1200 who has about 500 games under his belt

You lose to Fool's Mate twice in a row.

My 3 year old daughter ready to kick my ass. LOL She decided to attack me with a KING LOL