14779 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!
I will put a question out here: Do you think that tactics are easier to spot in games, or in problems?
The popular answer will probably be problems, because after all you KNOW there is a tactic during a problem, but I actually feel the opposite. It has actually been my experience that, after lots of practice so that I'm familiar enough with tactics, looking for tactics in my own games seems so easy compared to Tactics Trainer.
I think it's because in a game I know the context of the tactics very well: I'm planning every single piece placement and naturally go through the nuances of them (most likely unconsciously) on each move. I get used to what the pieces control -- I know my knight on e7 will always control c8, g8, d5, f5, and my bishop will always be able to go here and here. In Tactics trainer, the position is totally irrational because you don't know what to look for yet; you have to get right to the point of the position in a minute or so, whereas people actually playing the game got used to the piece placements likely for hours!
If you have been calculating attacks during a game for many moves, but never found anything, it would be easy to say "ok, let's do something else," and play a more subtle tactic. But if instead you faced that same position in a different environment -- in Tactics Trainer, you may see all those pieces aiming at the kingside and fail to consider anything else.
Basically, I think the level of familiarity you get about any position; that natural feel you develop about what your pieces can and can't do, while playing in a game overpowers the uncertainty of a tactic's existence. It may depend on how comfortable you are at tactics though, because if you are really bad at them then obviously you will never find them in a game.
I enjoy doing chess puzzles more than playing the game
I think is true to a large extent. also, I think many of people who create the tactics problems are fully aware of the context in which their problems will appear and they play off of this to a certain extent. all in good fun I suppose (you know like a "gotcha!" kind of thing). (grumble).
There are definitely exceptions though -- moves where, in a game, you would typically assume a certain move is forced (like a recapture), might be easier to find when you have a puzzle taking a piece from you and actually asking how to respond (as if to say, "you have a better move then just recapturing"). In that sort of case, it might become easy simply because you were asked to draw your eyes to a different idea.
Still, in most cases, my original post applies in my opinion.
exactly though. there are many puzzles that play off the "you have a better move" mindset i.e. there really isn't some flashy combination leading to checkmate or some other thing, it really is just moving your queen a single square to the right to protect the pawn or taking the piece. don't tell me you don't think the people who create such puzzles don't do it on purpose. obviously they do. there really are a bunch of "gotcha" puzzles! probably do it to make the tactics trainer experience more entertaining or something.
I like this idea. I seem to have a little bit of trouble when looking at other peoples games. By trouble I mean it seems to take me much longer to find things I would find quickly if it were my own game.
Elubas makes an excellent point, but we can't really draw a general rule from it - as with so many other comparisons in chess, it depends very much on the particular position and the individual analyzing it.
To some extent, the two situations are different in the way we approach them. As Elubas noted, we know there is a tactic in the puzzle, but not in our game even if we are on alert looking for them. But the composer often attempts to make the key move difficult to find, and knowing it may be hard to find doesn't always help so much!
For purposes of improvement, do both!
we know there is a tactic in the puzzle, but not in our game even if we are on alert looking for them. But the composer often attempts to make the key move difficult to find, and knowing it may be hard to find doesn't always help so much!
this describes what I shall refer to as a "pure tactic problem" many of them aren't "pure" though. a lot of them merely play off the "psychology of tactics trainer" for lack of better words, making them much more "difficult" than they would ever be in any other context.
I also feel there are certain issues with the "consensus voting" scheme to assign ratings to problems, it doesn't seem to result in problems of increasing difficulty as you ascend that ladder as one might expect. instead you may get really thrown off by some mate in 2 problem encountered at around 2200 (that seems like it should be rated 1500) simply because you were looking for something much more complicated (and then a second later when you see the answer and realize what happened to you there, you start cursing people, throwing things at the computer screen and begin to believe the tactics mods are conspiring against you in some way)
I also feel there are certain issues with the "consensus voting" scheme to assign ratings to problems, it doesn't seem to result in problems of increasing difficulty as you ascend that ladder as one might expect.
I thought I knew how ratings were calculated for problems, and I didn't think it had anything to do with voting. Would you care to elaborate?
Yeah, I thought it was just based on who passes and fails it, and how much time they take. Obviously the initial rating is arbitrary, but I would expect that to change quickly as many users solve/fail it.
Basically, I think the level of familiarity you get about any position; that natural feel you develop about what your pieces can and can't do, while playing in a game overpowers the uncertainty of a tactic's existence.
The gradual process you describe succintly answers the original question, in my opinion.
ummm obviously people don't actually vote for a particular rating for a given problem. the term "consensus voting" was put inside quotation marks for a reason.....get it? no?
Tactic Trainer here has funny solution. Some are good. Many just waste time. That is why maybe hard to spot when you play Live.
Mixed human & engine tournaments
by Aristogeiton a few minutes ago
Chess.com getting sued for libel?
by jarjarbinksdude a few minutes ago
is this player better then Magnus
by waffllemaster a few minutes ago
12/4/2013 - Immunity
by RiderFan a few minutes ago
Why won´t the Game Editor let pawns promote?
by axomamma 3 minutes ago
What's the best way to get good _quick_??!!
by SupremeOverlord 7 minutes ago
Losing a completely won game
by tesla1 8 minutes ago
What chess.com features are currently in development?
by jac1yn 8 minutes ago
Can a human player play like a chess engine?
by TheBigDecline 8 minutes ago
Anyone interested in helping create a Chess Magazine??
by manspider29 12 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!