The idea is to lower the number of tactical mistakes. The number of games that are decided by tactics is something close to 99% at a sub 2000 level. I don't get why people say that people who rely on tactics "don't understand chess". Who are you to say that the game should be played positionally? In chess you play whatever works. If you don't study tactics you are going to stay weak.

 It sounds like your coach wants to stay your coach for life, because without a strong base in tactics you will never be titled. 

Gm igor smirnov is an top GM, I'm happy that i get lesson from him.

 from 2000+++ players I can never find or use Tactics.

look the date he not play anymore, only online his bitz rating is 3200+++ he is now  an fulltime chess coach !!!

chess is a strategy game ,positional understanding is the key to success and attack, if you wanne beat the stronger players , you will not beat a gm on Tactics :)

look his free lessons , just think he is the best chess coach ever.

http://www.youtube.com/user/GMIgorSmirnov

thankyou, I  just started today 

If you look deeper into it you will see that tactics are a very big part of chess improvement, especially at your level.

And actually, the only chance you have of beating the gm is probably going to be on tactics. The GM has the knowledge and positonal understanding to destroy you in long term, so usually your best shot is to play something complex that he may make a mistake in.

You will lose either way, but the tactical way is probably better.

Also any grandmaster has a very strong tactical ability, without exception. If you do not have this, and want to win more games and play more sound chess, you will study tactics. 

@Oecleus thankyou for the info.

Studying tactics is like the grunt work of chess, like the manual labour. It's a lower order task, and that's why a lot of people don't like it (including me). What is most interesting is the grand plan, or the intelligent theoretical ideas. I hate it when this is all ruined by a cheap tactic by someone who is doing a ton of tactical tricks every day. 

Studying anything in chess "every day" indefinitely isn't very healthy or beneficial anyway. Some GMs don't study for weeks or months.  

TACTICS TRAINER IS THE BEST WAY TO INCREASE YOUR RATING

yeah but they don't have to study every day, rather they study the right ways which is a blend of different aspects of the game. They can leave the information there then and prepare tactically before a game or tournament. 

I'll wager than positional understanding needs a lot less maintainance than sharp never-ending tactics. 

And I'd wager that tactics is more productive if your goal is improvement.

Again, I really don't get the whole "tactics are cheap tricks" and "tactics aren't chess". Have any of these people ever played a nice combination that leads to a winning position? There is no greater joy in chess.

You cannot critize these people, they play their game, you play yours.

[COMMENT DELETED] nvm forget it. 

When you have a juicy knight on d6, it's hard for things to go tactically wrong for that player -- even if the player with a knight on d6 is a weak player, it's very easy for the opponent's position to fall apart anyway (especially if his pieces are tied down and if he has weaknesses) after some easy tactical moves. So although tactics are absolutely fundamental, it is still true that having a good position does make the tactics easier for you.

I agree that studying tactics is basically the most important thing -- I just wanted to point out that having a good position helps, too.

I used to think of tactics as cheap ideas, but the view doesn't make sense -- I mean, if strong positional chess doesn't often decide the game, then obviously it's not profitable to focus on (no matter how sophisticated you think it is) -- period. Chess is objective in the sense that there is an incontrovertible way to decide a winner -- whoever forces checkmate; not "whoever played more sophisticated moves." Besides, that's subjective anyway, unlike checkmate. We are all well aware of the goal of chess, so it is our utmost responsibility to do anything to achieve that goal, whether crude, annoying, or subtle.

Everybody makes mistakes, so have your tactical vision handy anytime. But obviously, you got to play at a level to induce these errors. So opening, planning and calculation, middlegame, time pressure and endgame are necessary techniques.

So in the meantime, try to study what you can, study what you want. Note that there are always overlaps and that just because you study tactics doesn't mean you'll fall for one!

Lol isn't that the GM with the gimmicky astro-turf advertised $100/each chess dvds? That's your coach? I saw one of his videos once he kept saying "the white" and "the black" and I loved his accent. Not $100 for a 'training program' worth of love though.

OP: You must be able to use tactical threats to make positional gains if you want to play with strong players. They will not give you the time to maneuver to some ideal positional goal, so tactical threats are a necessary part of the game. You don't 'get' tactics with stronger players because they see the tactics too and stop your plans, and are hopefully a little worse afterwords.

Another possibility that you may be encountering is that stronger players will often play extremely stable and quiet lines against weak players. They arn't trying to beat you they are just waiting for you to beat yourself.

That's at the grandmaster level, if you are at the grandmaster level you already have an extremely strong tactical ability.

 I really don't get how you guys don't get this. 

No it's not "at the grandmaster level". It's at the 1800 level at least. 

I wish clueless posters would stop talking about "at the grandmaster level" when they don't have a monkeys what they're talking about. There are only about 1000 grandmasters alive. 

Many IMs have written huge books on gaining small advantages. You really think this is all bs? Remember this fact next time before you talk about "I really don't see how people don't get this" next time, it's you who don't have a clue yourself. 

Are you really going to sit there and tell me that having a strong pawn centre is meaningless? That the idea of a passed pawn is silly? That 1. ...h5 in a standard game gives you just as much chance at your level? Of course you can get a total bind on the position at any level.  

No he   have no dvd's or chess book's , he is the most favorite chess coach on ICC , and he have a huge of free video  lessons and  a free blog