9811 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
My rating is 1469 FYI.
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.
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.
if you choose opening that doesn't lead to tactical shots you can have 3000 in Tactic trainer but it doesn't matter you will not find a tactic.even though 95% if you are rated 1200 when it comes to opening you will not get any good game play.strategy is more important than tactics. if you choose the wrong plan the wrong strategy and opening . your tt means nothing.your rating is a skill is made of those component:
opening phase :rating strategy:rating tactics endgame and many other factors. is kind of easy to solve tactics in tt cause you know they are there in the exercise. in game no one will say to you please look closely there is a tactical shot.
My thoughts, exactly.
And, I'm not knocking tactical training...it's fun and it is helpful not, only in pattern recognition, speed training and spatial awareness, as well (as in "darn"...I shoulda seen that bishop coming from the far corner).
But...I do think that "tactics are 95% of chess" is a bold faced lie. You just further explained some of the reasons why.
The worst chess player: disconnectors.
You've always considered yourself as being the worst chess player in the world.
You just played Ed. Now you are not quite so certain.
"Thanks, Ed," you tell him with a smirk on your face.
..and, for the very first time in your life you add: "gg".
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)
exactly that is the reason the opening plays a big role. and it is hard to play any tactic if your opponent knows an opening better than you and you don't know you are just on autopilot in someones else pet opening thus he will get a superior position . Openings are a result of grandmaster games and the moves in the opening is played on grandmaster level.
signs you should stick to chess and leave comedy to the pros:
1. you posted in this thread (I include myself).
Don't be so disparaging of yourself. Get into the spirit of things.
For example, your dour ogre avatar is funny. Your bullet rating is even funnier.
My 3 year old daughter ready to kick my ass. LOL She decided to attack me with a KING LOL
I play "up" a section normally at chess tourneys. and tactics trainer is just easier for me since I know theres a tactic there.
This is a fun thread, mind you I have only read a few of the 70 plus pages. Even " Old Grumpy " ( aka Mr.e4--- ) is getting into the act, telling jokes and also funny stories about Bobby Fischer. Who knew that Mr.e4--- even had a sense of humour ? So let's keep the Fun with Chess going, hmmm Fun with Chess, interesting idea lol.
No that was a compliment, I enjoyed your stories about Bobby Fischer and his cute little Pocket Chess Set, etc, very funny items.
Back in 1972, Bobby warming up for the big game, huddled under the magic chess blanket bestowed upon him by his best pal, your uncle Louie.
I think he's up in the Himalayas...above the clouds...by the look of things:
Periodically, your King topples over on it's own.
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 think that someone who is 1200 and has played 500 games is experienced.
You lose to Fool's Mate twice in a row.
You lose to fools mate once.
Good chess player...bad chess player...who cares (except, maybe your mom)?
Bobby certainly never let these things bother him, as exemplified (sweet word) by the photo of him below, visiting on your uncle Louie's horse farm up in the Catskills with his favorite mare, named "Cuddles".
And now we are finding the reason why Bobby gave your uncle Louie his most valuable possession in the whole, wide world...his genuine, authentic pocket magnetic chess set that had brought him so much fame (unfortunately, little fortune...but that's not important if you love the game).
If you had a pal with the good graces of an uncle Louie, wouldn't you in gratitude give him everything you owned, too? Hah? Can't hear you. Of course you would!
Hey I thought Bobby said he would never mix sex and chess after that one disasterous loss.
Oh sweet Jesus, not the Bongcloud...
why do people stall when they are losing?
by simonschtweezers a few minutes ago
I feel that I deserve a higher rating
by Gfirst 2 minutes ago
5/18/2013 - Mate in 4
by scorpion2a 4 minutes ago
Why did he resign in these games?
by binblaster 4 minutes ago
Drueke Chess Set
by BadHabitZZZ 5 minutes ago
by benkku52 7 minutes ago
Opening of the Day #12
by Master_Valek 11 minutes ago
Is It Necessary to Learn Chess By Coach To cross 1900 or More in FIDE
by ShyamGopal 11 minutes ago
by SupaSkillz 13 minutes ago
by cinemachess 16 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com