~~~Ok, this has been said by masters before and some don't agree with this but I think that it is true that chess is mainly tactics, but he percentage may be off. Anyway, I do tactics training 4 times a week trying to do 100 problems each time; more if I have the extra time to do more. Thanks for any response...

I train at chess.emrald.net and was wondering if anyone else here does as well; if anyone is interested I have the same name (Hammerschlag) at that site.

~~~What are your thoughts on tactics and how much of chess make up tactics?

~~~Is it wise to devote the majority of your time training tactics or should tactics be the "main" bulk of chess training?

~~~Even though I feel tactics is my stronger point of the game, I find that I am not very fast in finding them during timed games; so I try to train my tactics more than anything and I have done some opening study as well because that is a weak area. So, should I stop training tactics and find more areas that I am weak at and train them?

~~~On a side note, I have managed to raise my tactics ratings enough to be in the top 1,000 tacticians and close to being in the top 900 (currently 910 on the list); my goal is to be in the top 500 on that site which should take a really long time.

~~~EDIT: Does anyone else train there (chess.emrald.net)? What's your user name if you do. Thanks.

Your strategy makes your tactics.

If your strategy is wrong, your opponent will have all the good tactics and vice versa, apart from a few lucky times maybe when they find a rare tactic after getting their strategy and position all wrong. 

From the mantras on this site:

I believe practicing tactics with a specific number in mind (100) is not as effective if your mind turns to lemon meringue by #58.  No sense in slogging on.  You may already be well aware of that through experience.

At a certain point, the study of tactics remains but gives way to more and in depth opening, middlegame, endgame, positional play, etc. practice.  Where that point is seems to be up for debate, but if you feel your game can be improved with more concentration on openings at this point, then why not give it a try?  You can always go back to tactics training should you find yourself losing your way.

Top 1000, eh.  Holy moly. Well done!   -  I might add that with the Tactics Trainer, you know there is a specific tactical outcome.  In chess games, it's not as apparent from the start of a move that you will gain a tactical advantage.  That may explain why your difficulty in finding tactics fast during timed games, in spite of your impressive standing in Tactics Trainer.

Hope this helps!  :) 

I love that site for tactics training, try to do it regularly. I enjoy how it forces you to move very quickly if you want the points, forcing you to train yourself to recognize the patterns instantly.

I've always thought there was a diminishing return on tactics training for more than a few minutes each day, but maybe not completely worthless. A common advice is that you should study until you've memorized three new tactical patterns that you didn't know before. An adult brain (assuming you are an adult) is not supposed to be wired to handle much more than that daily.

But let's say I've already done my 15 minutes or so and my three new patterns, but I don't have time to play a full game. I can study endgames (okay, I should do that, but I've been avoiding it) or go over some master games, but it's always tempting to just go for the tactics trainer.

Depending on your level of play, chess is indeed 99% tactics.  Probably for anyone rated under 1800 USCF,  99 out of 100 games hinge on a tactic... the odd 1 out of 100 will contain no gross tactical blunder by one side.  Yeah, that sounds about right.

Like uh oh said though, there are other areas worth focusing on, i.e. without any strategy you position will never be good enough to facilitate a winning tactic.  Without endgames you can't convert a superior position, etc.

I like chesstempo.com better than the emerald one.  I prefer untimed tactics, so just like a real game I have to make sure it works to the very end before I play the first move.  I guess blitz tactics are ok if you want to see a lot of new patterns.  Untimed works your visualization, that is holding a future position and looking from that new point for the best move.  Many times this is trying to find the best defensive move for your opponent after you find the main tactical idea.

I've read GM's like Susan Polgar who say that below a USCF rating of 1900 your main focus should be tactics. I've known strong players (and been beaten by them) who say you should learn the end game first. I beleve that a large majority of games below expert level are decided by tactics.  I also believe that lower rated players will benefit from study of the end game.

Endgames are like the best kept secret weapon vs class players.

Ok it's no secret, but it's as if 99% of class players find it too boring to bother looking into it.  There was this 2150 rated 11 year old from TX I saw at a tourney once, all the kid did was trade down into an endgame about as quickly as he could, sometimes ignoring finer points, even if it resulted in an equal endgame... and dismantle the guy from there. 

It wasn't working so well for him as I watched him play a master... he eventually lost, but it obviously got him as far as 2150...

You have to have tactics. You could play a better positional squeeze than Petrosian himself but if you hang a piece to a tactic then it doesn't really matter any more. You're screwed no matter how good your plan was.

How do you think Tal was so great? That guy could just tactically get his way out of almost anything.

I've been ignoring endgames because I felt like they could be figured out on the fly just by thinking things through.

In my first OTB tournament last weekend, I dropped a clear 0.5 points by botching an endgame, and another 0.5-1 point in a game where I had an opportunity to simplify to an extra-pawn endgame but wasn't sure of myself and chose to keep on with an unclear attack instead.

So yeah, maybe I do need to study endgames a little... or a lot...

If you're playing that well positionally, you WON'T "hang a piece to a tactic." Your opponent will have no sound crushing tactics because you've eliminated the opportunities. Good tactics will beat position if the position was flawed. Good position will beat tactics if the tactics are flawed. The idea of positional play is to attack from strength. Accumulate advantages, THEN launch the tactics.

Shhhhh, this is my cunning plan to escape from the bowels of class C into the promised land that is class B !! It won't work if you go telling everyone

Studying basic endings IS tactics, although strategy does play a role as well.  Just as learning elementary tactics enables you to find more complicated tactics over the board, so learning basic endings enables you to play more complicated endings because you know what can happen with simplification.

You can't learn endings on the fly.  Some of these things have changed evaluations over the centuries, and GMs still make fundamental errors in the ending. 

There is a famous Rubenstein Rook ending where he is even in material, but passively placed and his opponent seems to have any winning chances with an easy draw in hand.  Suddenly Rubenstein abandons his defense of a pawn to move his Rook to an aggressive position.  In the process he lost a second pawn, but his Rook was then able to control the game and he won.  Tartakower remarked that had the game been played 300 years earlier, Rubenstein would surely have been burned as a witch.

These are the sort of things you just can't figure out on your own over the board.

Tactics is 99% of the game and should be 99% of your emphasis in study and practice - until you no longer lose to simple tactics.  Once you can get through games without giving away material or letting your King be overrun with an easy shot, then you can proceed to learn more strategy and position play.

orangehonda wrote:

I like chesstempo.com better than the emerald one.  I prefer untimed tactics, so just like a real game I have to make sure it works to the very end before I play the first move.  I guess blitz tactics are ok if you want to see a lot of new patterns. 

Untimed works your visualization, that is holding a future position and looking from that new point for the best move.   

Many times this is trying to find the best defensive move for your opponent after you find the main tactical idea.   

Word 

There's a famous saying, "Chess is 99 percent tactics". That may be an exaggeration, but no matter how deep your strategic understanding is, it can never replace accuracy in calculating tactical positions. - Susan Polagar - Chess Tactics For Champions

Treat yourself this Holiday season to a www.chesstempo.com membership. It's dirt cheap, and absolutely the best tactics trainer on the internet. The interface looks fantastic, as well.

I use Tactics Trainer at chess.com also, like it, but find it lacking in certain areas.

Chesstempo has two rated speeds, standard and blitz. It's important to do  standard rated tactics first, because the goal is to get the problems right and improve your calculation, not to do them fast.

I just started the endgame tactics trainer at chesstempo, and it's amazing. It feels like I'm in a real endgame situation with just a few pieces/pawns.

I now spend more time doing tactics training than anything else to improve my game. It took a solid year for other chess.com members to beat that idea into my skull.

As a second year player, my tactics stats reflect that of a beginning chess player new to tactics, I hope. My percentage correct for standard rating is low, but that was before I knew to strive for accuracy, not speed. Now I take my time and strive for 100% accuracy.  Here's how chesstempo reports stats.

User: musikamole (Gold member)

Stats for standard tactics

Rating: 1425.5 (RD: 37.29) (Best Active Rating: 1425 Worst Active Rating: 829)
Active Rank: 5222/7701 (Better than: 32.19% Best Active: 2018 Worst Active: 5816)
Problems Done: 1123 (Correct: 849 Failed: 274)
Percentage correct: 75.60%
Average recent per problem time spent 158 seconds
FIDE Estimated Rating based on standard tactics: 1637

Stats for blitz tactics

Rating: 1206.5 (RD: 101.68) (Best Active Rating: 1206 Worst Active Rating: 1190)
Active Rank: Not Active/842 (Best Active: 802 Worst Active: 804)
Problems Done: 36 (Correct: 31 Failed: 5)
Percentage correct: 86.11%
Average recent per problem time spent 26 seconds
Need to do 114 more problems to get a blitz tactics FIDE estimate.

Stats for endgame theory

Rating: 1454.7 (RD: 137.37)
Active Rank: Not Active/506
Problems Done: 35 (Correct: 27 Failed: 8)
Percentage correct: 77.14%

"It took a solid year for other chess.com members to beat that idea into my skull. "

I keep an online diary blog about my chess experiences, and since I fancy myself a bit of a decent writer, I someday might turn it into something more for the public to see. I think it'd be really useful for adult amateur intermediates who struggle to improve.

The most basic theme I keep coming back to is this: I (we) am not smart enough to ignore the advice of the collected wisdom of better players! I don't get to take shortcuts.

When I stopped ignoring them telling me to take my time on each move, my internet rating went up about 200 points.

When I stopped ignoring them telling me to study tactics regularly, I went up another 200 points.

I've recently decided to stop ignoring them telling me to study endgames. We'll see how that goes :)

Why do us noobs think we know better?  

creative play, is tomorrows tactical trainer....

a good game is 99% creative play...the one tactic you have, can win you the game.

Evident is why you take a stronger player on, with a line, that is creative....

the winning tactic, is the one, that lead to mate, in the fewest moves.

creative play, always result in an upset.

a creative player, can win anyone!

a tactical player can loose.

That's what's weird about me - I don't do tactics puzzles at all. I can't remember the last time I did a tactics puzzle either. I think I was able to learn tactics by watching master games of aggressive openings like the Pirc and Alekhine.

But when I look at all the pawn sacrifices in the Grunfeld I'm always confused.

Maybe Teichmann was trying to say that 1 mistake is usually enough to cost you the entire game (or 1 tactical blow is enough to win).

How many chess games have you seen whereby both players don't make ANY blunders or inaccuracies? Maybe only at the top level now, but not for the old masters back then and definitely not for us noobs...

The first thing you need is to get better at is tactics. Until you can find and execute simple combinations while avoiding becoming a victim of the same simple combinations, you will not enjoy success. Doing 10-20 tactical problems every day will make you stronger, but even more important is simply developing the habit of examining every possible check and capture--both yours and your opponent's. You will be amazed at the number of simple winning shots you will find and the number of losing moves you'll avoid. Getting in the habit of systematically looking at every check and capture is probably the most important single thing you can do to improve your chess strength