Tal's tactics rating on chess.com would be rather low. The reason? The tactics trainer on chess.com is filled with errors. Often the best move in the position is not the line provided by the tactics trainer. Tal's next level understanding of tactics would therefore "test poorly".
What would Tal's Tactics rating on chess.com be?
Sort:
That is possible but not very likely, that there are mistakes. Whenever I think of a "better" move in Tactics Trainer, I click "analysis" and the computer shows me my error.
I think Tal would be even higher than this "morfi" guy. https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/tactics.
Morfi is obviously an engine. Otherwise he would not have such a low blitz rating. "Chess is 99% tactics" a wise man once said.
lasagnaa wrote:
That is possible but not very likely, that there are mistakes. Whenever I think of a "better" move in Tactics Trainer, I click "analysis" and the computer shows me my error.
I think Tal would be even higher than this "morfi" guy. https://www.chess.com/leaderboard/tactics.
Morfi is obviously an engine. Otherwise he would not have such a low blitz rating. "Chess is 99% tactics" a wise man once said.
I'm telling you that some of the positions produced by the "enemy player" controlled by the tactics trainer are objectively superior, as in the "tactics" end up being the other end of complicated sacrifices by the enemy player. There is a tactic I just did where I ended up with a queen a rook and a knight versus two rooks and two bishops. I knew myself the position was winning for black and yet am expected to play an inferior move and create an inferior position when there is the option to just win a piece.
Go to your stats page for tactics trainer and try to find a specific example in your history. I would like to see it as I also feel it is unlikely. I haven't seen a single error in the years I have been using it so yours would be the first.
ciarli wrote:
Tal's tactics are not to learn purposes but someone can study them at freetime...
they are about how far can throw someone his own mind and those are street chess and not scholastic chess..
Sir, I really think you have fucking clue what you are talking about, because I sure don't.
Tal was the most skilled tactician of his time (even better than Nezhmatdinov), but today's young monsters are even better. Baadur Jobava is the closest we have today to Tal's brilliance, but Tal was able to combine a fine positional understanding that is often under-appreciated. He became World Champion because he was able to compete with Botvinnik in quiet positions and technical endgames.
Tal was a true wizard, who found amazing possibilities in positions most would consider completely mundane. But give today's elite players credit. The computer revolution has turned all of the top players into incredible calculating tactical machines.
Is Tal the best at tactics? Debatable. Was he strong? Without a doubt. My personal hypothesis would be that Tal would not be immediately great with a high tactics rating, but still a high one. After Tal learns of computers, and analysis ... I think Tal may even surpass 3000 tactics chess.com rating, as with other "classical" players (like Alekhine, or Lasker). With computer-aided learning they all may be "Super-Super GMs"; keep in mind how they were the best in the world, without computers - imagine how good they could be with them. Also chess.com tactics are generated from a pool of problems based on your " category" of tactics rating. At a tactics level of (say) 3000, there are not a huge number of problems in the pool - so players can simply memorize the problems. Even now, there are chess.com players of 3000+ tactics rating. Impressive either way. How high Tal's tactical rating would be though, is up for debate; but I suspect it is high.
Was Tal the most skilled tactician in the world?