method to take in a position where there are possible tactics

tennbad
Manatini wrote:

That's what I mean. We have a million people solving thousands of puzzles. Some people solve puzzles every day... but Morphy probably solved none. There were some primitive books back then, and tournament games were passed around... but obviously his vision for combinations didn't come from solving puzzles.

That's not to say that solving puzzles is bad, of course, and I'm sure Morphy would have been even better had he had access to today's stuff. I'm just saying there's something more to the learning process. Obviously he picked up ideas and principals  (or whatever you want to call them) from other sources.

This sounds depressing.  It sounds like you guys are saying you are born with ability or your not. if you are no one really knows how to develop it. Working hard may not amount to anything.  After all no one knows what exactly to work on.  it loses all meaning if you don’t know what to do.  If your lucky and born with ability things will magically come together no matter how you work at it.

 

 

Manatini
tennbad wrote:
Manatini wrote:

That's what I mean. We have a million people solving thousands of puzzles. Some people solve puzzles every day... but Morphy probably solved none. There were some primitive books back then, and tournament games were passed around... but obviously his vision for combinations didn't come from solving puzzles.

That's not to say that solving puzzles is bad, of course, and I'm sure Morphy would have been even better had he had access to today's stuff. I'm just saying there's something more to the learning process. Obviously he picked up ideas and principals  (or whatever you want to call them) from other sources.

This sounds depressing.  It sounds like you guys are saying you are born with ability or your not. if you are no one really knows how to develop it. Working hard may not amount to anything.  After all no one knows what exactly to work on.  it loses all meaning if you don’t know what to do.  If your lucky and born with ability things will magically come together no matter how you work at it.

I wouldn't go that far. Everyone works for their skill. Everyone starts as an awful beginner who plays lots of mistakes. It's just that for some people work pays off faster than others, and no one can really explain why that is. It's not that the training is secret, it's just something about how people process and relate and learn information.

The good news is that chess is fun no matter your rating, and that even a somewhat below average person, if they work really hard, could probably be in the top 1% of players.

And try to stay motivated... because no one improves constantly. Everyone has a few months, or a year, where even if they're studying every day they don't seem to be improving... but eventually you break through and start improving again. It's just that while players like you and me get stuck at 1600 for a while, players like Carlsen get stuck at 2600 for a while tongue.png

So it's somewhere in the middle. You'll probably never be a professional player, and that was probably determined at birth, but you probably can be a lot better than you think you can, and be better than almost everyone on the planet.

Manatini

By the way, the reason I decided to really like and play chess was:

1) There will always be something more for me to learn -- I can't master it.

2) There will always be someone better than me, who I can test my limits against.

---

So really, the beauty of the game to me, from day 1, was that I was 100% sure I can't be the best tongue.png

khadijah_maznan

can someone help me , i was realy sad because i've been training for 9 years to become a strong player in chess, but untill this day i still can't tear.png. i don't why...  i had the desire to become an athelete in my country but untill now i still not qualify. can someone give me some tips how can i be a good chess player?

 
 
Caesar49bc

Timed tactics are worthless for doing what tactics are suppose to do: teach new patterns.

Pattern tactics is what I do.

Software designed to teach you tactics. Take a new tactical problem, using as few pieces on the board as possible, and has you solve it. 

Then take the same tactic with more and more pieces on the board, all coming from real life chess games.

After solving dozens of the pattern, how long do you think it will take your brain to spot the pattern in a timed test?

You don't solve 3 to 10 second tactics, you just have to recognize the pattern.

PM me if your curious as to what I use for pattern tactics.

tennbad
Manatini wrote:
tennbad wrote:
Manatini wrote:

That's what I mean. We have a million people solving thousands of puzzles. Some people solve puzzles every day... but Morphy probably solved none. There were some primitive books back then, and tournament games were passed around... but obviously his vision for combinations didn't come from solving puzzles.

That's not to say that solving puzzles is bad, of course, and I'm sure Morphy would have been even better had he had access to today's stuff. I'm just saying there's something more to the learning process. Obviously he picked up ideas and principals  (or whatever you want to call them) from other sources.

This sounds depressing.  It sounds like you guys are saying you are born with ability or your not. if you are no one really knows how to develop it. Working hard may not amount to anything.  After all no one knows what exactly to work on.  it loses all meaning if you don’t know what to do.  If your lucky and born with ability things will magically come together no matter how you work at it.

I wouldn't go that far. Everyone works for their skill. Everyone starts as an awful beginner who plays lots of mistakes. It's just that for some people work pays off faster than others, and no one can really explain why that is. It's not that the training is secret, it's just something about how people process and relate and learn information.

The good news is that chess is fun no matter your rating, and that even a somewhat below average person, if they work really hard, could probably be in the top 1% of players.

And try to stay motivated... because no one improves constantly. Everyone has a few months, or a year, where even if they're studying every day they don't seem to be improving... but eventually you break through and start improving again. It's just that while players like you and me get stuck at 1600 for a while, players like Carlsen get stuck at 2600 for a while

So it's somewhere in the middle. You'll probably never be a professional player, and that was probably determined at birth, but you probably can be a lot better than you think you can, and be better than almost everyone on the planet.

I'm skeptical that the training is not a secret in some sense.  I think its more likely that most of the information out there is probably bad.  The training that many people are doing is probably hurting them.  Especially if a forum is where they get their advice, but may be no other option.  you can't ask a book a question.  For the lucky few kids who get private coaching, they will get some good stuff, but it will be generic coaching.  The information is probably nothing that you can't read in a book, but it has the advantage of a clear plan.  As opposed to a jumbled up bunch of training methods that are as uncoordinated as the pieces in my game.   The really good stuff is passed from Master to a single student that the master selects.  Outside of this I probably agree with what you are saying which is why it bothered me more than it should.

 

 

Manatini
tennbad wrote:

The really good stuff is passed from Master to a single student that the master selects.  

IMO that's pretty far fetched.

Sure, good coaches can fast track your progress, but they can't turn a turd into gold tongue.png

And on the other side of it, if someone has the potential to be world champion, they don't need any special secret advice. Just look at Fischer. The Botvinnik School of Chess was famous, and the Russians were so far ahead of everyone that they'd organize Russia vs the rest of the word matches. Not only did Fischer not have any Russian coaches, but there weren't many good chess books in English, so he had to learn Russian just to read what any Russian child could.

TrickyTaffy
Though tactics stump me to, try to focus on part of the board where most of the pieces are located. Usually, this is a major tactical area. After all, where many pieced are placed, the are most likely placed like that for a reason. If pieces are evenly spread out around the board, try to focus on areas with the strongest pieces. Good luck!
tennbad
Manatini wrote:
tennbad wrote:

The really good stuff is passed from Master to a single student that the master selects.  

IMO that's pretty far fetched.

Sure, good coaches can fast track your progress, but they can't turn a turd into gold

And on the other side of it, if someone has the potential to be world champion, they don't need any special secret advice. Just look at Fischer. The Botvinnik School of Chess was famous, and the Russians were so far ahead of everyone that they'd organize Russia vs the rest of the word matches. Not only did Fischer not have any Russian coaches, but there weren't many good chess books in English, so he had to learn Russian just to read what any Russian child could.

A little far fetched maybe.  I’m not defining “gold” to be world champion.  Or even a titled player.  A reasonable coach could probably turn anyone dedicated into an expert.  Without that special coaching, most of the same dedicated people will never get there and never know why.  A few could.  Now, someone with special ability that has GOAT potential ...and also discovered the game... also must have special connections that will help them develop it to its fullest.  he/she will not get run of the mill coaching.  Fischer was an obvious exception and we have to go back 50yrs to come up with it. This is more of a philosophy discussion now but it’s fun. 🙂.  To tie this in with my original thread.  I’m still searching for a method to improve on tactics.  I really don’t have any idea how to proceed.  Maybe, I should hire a coach for an hour.  I’ll give them whatever info I have to show them where I’m at.  They lay out a plan that I go forth and follow.  At least I wouldn’t get conflicting info.  I wonder if that would be worth it?🧐

Manatini

I took a few lessons with a GM coach.

Mostly he just helped organize the work. Like study _____ games of _____ players. He also had positions to solve.

I still felt like 99% of the work was on me. He just helped me make my work more efficient.

As far as "secret" sorts of tips... as in single sentences that open your eyes, I only ever got that after tournament games during the postmortem. Someone 200-400 points stronger than me, who beat me, would say why did you do this? Or why did you think this long? Or what were you planning if ____. And then they'd critique my answer, and give me their thoughts, and maybe 10 postmortems are meh, but the 1 that's gold is priceless because it's tailor made just for you. Your mistakes, your thoughts, and human feedback.

ghost_of_pushwood
Manatini wrote:

So really, the beauty of the game to me, from day 1, was that I was 100% sure I can't be the best

happy.png

Caesar49bc

I think pattern tactics + combinations is extremely effective.

Take a pattern, and solve it bunch of times, taken from different OTB games. After the umpteenth time, you'll easily recognize the pattern in your games.

Combinations are far more difficult. Perhaps there are patterns in there, but mostly you have to look at the entire board, trying to find a defensible weakness, in order to create a weakness on another part of the board. the opponent can't both prevent the first weakness, without creating the 2nd weakness. sometimes, the person can defend the 2nd weakness, but that ends any hope of trying to defend the first weakness.

JosephReidNZ

Do more tactics 

dk-Ltd
tennbad wrote:
Manatini wrote:
tennbad wrote:
Manatini wrote:

That's what I mean. We have a million people solving thousands of puzzles. Some people solve puzzles every day... but Morphy probably solved none. There were some primitive books back then, and tournament games were passed around... but obviously his vision for combinations didn't come from solving puzzles.

That's not to say that solving puzzles is bad, of course, and I'm sure Morphy would have been even better had he had access to today's stuff. I'm just saying there's something more to the learning process. Obviously he picked up ideas and principals  (or whatever you want to call them) from other sources.

This sounds depressing.  It sounds like you guys are saying you are born with ability or your not. if you are no one really knows how to develop it. Working hard may not amount to anything.  After all no one knows what exactly to work on.  it loses all meaning if you don’t know what to do.  If your lucky and born with ability things will magically come together no matter how you work at it.

I wouldn't go that far. Everyone works for their skill. Everyone starts as an awful beginner who plays lots of mistakes. It's just that for some people work pays off faster than others, and no one can really explain why that is. It's not that the training is secret, it's just something about how people process and relate and learn information.

The good news is that chess is fun no matter your rating, and that even a somewhat below average person, if they work really hard, could probably be in the top 1% of players.

And try to stay motivated... because no one improves constantly. Everyone has a few months, or a year, where even if they're studying every day they don't seem to be improving... but eventually you break through and start improving again. It's just that while players like you and me get stuck at 1600 for a while, players like Carlsen get stuck at 2600 for a while

So it's somewhere in the middle. You'll probably never be a professional player, and that was probably determined at birth, but you probably can be a lot better than you think you can, and be better than almost everyone on the planet.

I'm skeptical that the training is not a secret in some sense.  I think its more likely that most of the information out there is probably bad.  The training that many people are doing is probably hurting them.  Especially if a forum is where they get their advice, but may be no other option.  you can't ask a book a question.  For the lucky few kids who get private coaching, they will get some good stuff, but it will be generic coaching.  The information is probably nothing that you can't read in a book, but it has the advantage of a clear plan.  As opposed to a jumbled up bunch of training methods that are as uncoordinated as the pieces in my game.   The really good stuff is passed from Master to a single student that the master selects.  Outside of this I probably agree with what you are saying which is why it bothered me more than it should.

 

 

I think your best trainer, would be yourself. Don't expect much even from GM's, since they can't put themselves in your shoes no matter how much they want to. They have 10 times better chess memory than you and calculate much deeper. Their intuition is probably better than your best calculation and I could go on, but at the end, they just CAN'T understand you.

Having said that, I am 100% sure that you can improve and that you can even improve your speed. I am the first that will say that speed is the hardest thing to improve, but even so is possible. Keep doing what you do. Try to understand and learn and be able to name all tactic motifs and mate patterns and keep doing them slowly repeating the ones you missed. I even have my own names for tactics that a name doesn't exist (like boomerang, sandwich x-ray etc.).

Don't worry about what others are doing and what is supposedly expected from you. Have you ever looked at the top tactics players? They do 8 move tactics in 3 secs. Do you understand the meaning of it? They either cheat, which I don't think so, or they have them almost all memorised. Thus, don't compare yourselve to them. Accept that they have better chess memory than you and move on. I am sure you don't like solving tactics, for training and enjoying your memory. You do them, because you like to think. Don't compare yourselve with those memory "monsters" then.

You are doing well. You are improving and you will improve even more and if you want my advice, try endgames (what I am doing right now). They are the funnest part of chess, the part that requires the most logical thinking, involves no luck (like middle game) and memory doesn't play a major role (like in opening).

blueemu
tennbad wrote:
I am so slow when it comes to solving tactics. I’m thinking the reason why is not so much I don’t know the pattern (when I actually do know it) as much as it takes too long to identify the tactical elements. I mean say there is a tactic problem I’m supposed to solve in 10sec. I’ve never seen it before and I’m staring at a board with 26 pieces. I’m scanning to identify what is pinned, alignment problems, trapped pieces, king safety, Knight forking distance, etc. By the time I notice the one element I need to, a whole minute has passed. But when I do see it the tactic jumps out quickly. I don’t know how to see it faster. I don’t have a-priori knowledge of where to start looking. It’s just lucky if I start looking at the right spot first.

Is there a better method to take in the position? How to do this faster?

I often find tactics by working backwards.

That is, I try to picture the position AFTER I've played the winning move (mate, or forking K+Q, or whatever) and then try to figure out a plausible way to get from the current position to that winning position.

piscatorox

One negative side of tactics trainers: there always a tactic in the position. This allows 'cheating' as it is often possible to see what the motif must be, and then play the move that fits the motif, without having properly analysed it to make sure it works.

In a real game, there's no sign telling you that the tactic exists and works, and being good in sharp positions is as much about not playing the dud sacrifices that don't work as playing the good ones that do.

So one suggestion: as well as trying tactics trainers, play series of games where you only play sharp lines (eg Kings Gambit, Evans Gambit, etc). That way you are also training yourself not to play dud tactics.

Manatini
piscatorox wrote:

One negative side of tactics trainers: there always a tactic in the position. This allows 'cheating' as it is often possible to see what the motif must be, and then play the move that fits the motif, without having properly analysed it to make sure it works.

In a real game, there's no sign telling you that the tactic exists and works, and being good in sharp positions is as much about not playing the dud sacrifices that don't work as playing the good ones that do.

So one suggestion: as well as trying tactics trainers, play series of games where you only play sharp lines (eg Kings Gambit, Evans Gambit, etc). That way you are also training yourself not to play dud tactics.

Or just solve tactics from a book instead of online nonsense that rewards you for guessing moves that look like tactics.

And then when you solve from books, be rigorous. Try to find the whole line which will necessarily include the opponent's best defense.

If you habitually calculate the best defense, then it will prevent you from playing dud tactics... although I should note that your post and my reply to it are pretty useless for the OP who is too new to chess for any of this to matter.

IMBacon

Bumped by the PTBA.

tennbad
Manatini wrote:

Or just solve tactics from a book instead of online nonsense that rewards you for guessing moves that look like tactics.

And then when you solve from books, be rigorous. Try to find the whole line which will necessarily include the opponent's best defense.

If you habitually calculate the best defense, then it will prevent you from playing dud tactics... although I should note that your post and my reply to it are pretty useless for the OP who is too new to chess for any of this to matter.

I think Manatini is talking improving calculation, which I of course need to do.

I'm focused on training simple patterns for tactics right now and improving my ability to recognize them instantly.

I'm using some tactics books on chessable for that and always go back to puzzle rush to test my improvement.  Maybe I should wait a year before doing that I know, but I can't help myself. 

This is what happens.  I can't see everything in the position in a few seconds.  Therefore I have to play the first thing that pops in my head.   Unfortunately the first thing isn't always the right thing.  I go for a piece win within 5sec when a mate in 2 was available on a 500 rated tactic.  Or I notice a king/queen alignment problem first and wast my time trying to turn that into the solution, when in fact it had nothing to do with the tactic.  I can wast time getting the tactic right, but that's no good either since this is puzzle rush.  So I wind up guessing and get 3 wrong with a few minutes left on the clock.  Or I can waste time and get them all right and score in the late teens, which sucks as well.  My best is only 21 but is just lucky if my guesses are right.  I watch class players hit 30 easily.  I simply don't know if my method of study is hindering me or I need to give it a lot more time like a year or so.  I'm just frustrated.  Okay, so I feel like when the problem comes up, I can't take in the position and notice all important elements in a few seconds.  So when the pieces pop up, what do you look at first?

David

 

JosephReidNZ

tactics.pngevil.png