STUDY END GAMES NOT TACTICS.

Its a tactic.
Its called a skewer.
It illustrates that tactics and endgames aren't exclusive of each other.
And its very basic.
Do you see yet that black's King was confined to g7 and h7 and why?
How about if it was a b-pawn instead of an a-pawn?
White's King could be in many places. And he still wins.
Black's rook could be anywhere on the file of the pawn and white still wins.
Part of the study of tactics - is the study of mistakes.
------------------
Also don't forget - you had information. You were told its a win.
15 seconds? That's a lot.
Some players far under master level would spot that in 5 seconds or less.
-----------------------
There's another basic rook ending involving a pin of a rook.
And there's the Lucena position. Also involves tactics.
The Philidor's rook ending is a draw but involves tactics.
---------------------
Regarding the semantics of 'tactics' would a beginner player be familiar with such semantics?
You might find that different people assign different semantics to 'tactics'.
------------------------
Regarding the tactics puzzles - many might not realize that they can be filtered.
So for beginners - tactics puzzles with very low ratings can be selected to do.
And they can be done unrated and without a timer.
Which is probably the best way to do them.
But with this note - if the player isn't making rapid progress in figuring out the puzzle and is starting to 'crunch' - its probably better for that player to concede he doesn't get it and pick a move on principle and be willing to get it wrong and learn instead of crunching.

You are deluding yourself. You don't see any tactics because you are bad at tactics. You got this one right in your bio, then you decided to flip a full 360 just for the sake of this topic.

Let's look at your last lost game:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/137605408352?username=imtrashlol_91&move=65

Look at move 31, after white's dxe4 move. You can win a piece by playing Bb2+, but instead you just trade down to a pawn up endgame which might or might not win. Next white plays 32. Rxh6 (??), blundering away the rook, and you ignore it. A few more moves later it's you who blunders away your rook in a drawn position. With more than 25 minutes (!) on your clock. (That is abysmal time management, and that is another issue that you seem to have).

You can study endgames, and it's a good thing. But your main weakness is tactics (lack of tactics), and that is what's losing you games.

You may have a point magipi, but almost all of us have dreadful games; I certainly do.

Do you think that this is an exceptionally bad game by a 600-rated player? It might be, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Every 600-rated player has the same main weakness: tactics. An exception would be an extremely rare individual with extreme characteristics.

Some of my chess games ,as black----

Up until my black king suffered a concussion, I remember the game going something like this.

It's ok. You're right. I'll keep trying. .

The best book that will work your while chess life . . .

I can see the logic on both sides. However, why am I good at finding tactics in a puzzle and not the ones I need in game? That's the question. Why is it I have done thousands of tactics. Both on here and chessable and can't get out of beginner ratings? I know all of the types of tactics. I have tried every recommended method to improve.

I looked at your last game just now.
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/137798243012?tab=review-------------------------------------
You played Ng5 early - knowing your opponent could defend against your threat at f7.
Then later when he threatened that knight by playing h6 ... you let him take it.
-----------------
In puzzles - three points ...
1) you're told that something's there. (you're on move)
A clearly best move. A tactical move. A decisive or necessary move.
2) But another point about tactics puzzles is that there is something like that there - as opposed to game positions where such things aren't there at the time.
3) And so often in puzzles - the opponent has just made a particular kind of mistake.
A mistake to be tactically exploited - on move.
At the time. Timing. Timing is everything.
---------------------
Part of tactics - not giving them to opponents.
Study of tactics includes the study of mistakes.
Opponents' mistakes and one's own mistakes.

I was actually drunk at 1am on that last game lol.

Extremely wrong approach.

At the very beginning, tactics is almost the ONLY thing you need to study and practice. It is useless to spend much time on endgames. Reason is:

When a very beginner comes (if he ever comes) to the endgame, 99% of the times, the endgame is already decided. Either he is in a totally winning position, or the opponent is. Only 1% of the times, he will find himself in a position where a "real" (as an example) Rook + 4 pawn vs Rook + 3 pawns needs to be played perfectly.

So, the games were decided in the middlegame, due to, often, simple overlooked tacticts or a blunder. Hence, study tactics, not endgames.

As time passes, and strenght increases, THEN it will be time to study endgames.

Cool. What do I do when I can't find tactics? I'm actually decent at tactics because I've done thousands. If I don't improve, it has to be something else. I made this post because of my experience doing nothing but tactics. I've won more games due to having better development center control than I have from tactics.

There's a serious problem with doing puzzles. You know that there's a tactic there. As such, you maybe deluding yourself about being good at tactics. You need to see tactics when you don't know they're there.

If you're dropping pieces or not grabbing pieces, the problem is board vision or not paying attention.

It's not a "serious problem", it's just how it is. There isn't a tactical opportunity at every move.

But there are at least a couple of tactical opportunities in every game. And how can you make sure you spot them there and then? By practicing tactics puzzles.

It's just as likely,if not more so,that dropping pieces is simply a sign of a disordered "thought process" concerning how a player should systematically approach his move choice. If one doesn't develope a process that works for them then dropping pieces will always be a problem.

I'm wondering if ImTrashLOL_91 is going through the process of "what did my opponent threaten with his last move?" and "what will my opponent do when I make this threat move?".

magipi, what I'm trying to say is that the thought process of solving puzzles can be skewed when solving puzzles. I'm saying doing puzzles is bad.

Okay, badger_song has a good point. Orderly, process would include a last check to see if a move is a blunder, like am I hanging a piece or allowing mate in one.

Better development and center control don't automagically make you win more games. They actually (alone) don't make you win any games.

Better development and center control are two correct strategies. You moved your pieces wisely, with the goal of strategic, “positional” play, which is to increase the power of your pieces and create fertile conditions for tactical strikes on later moves. Sometimes this is a matter of arranging your pieces so that they have more freedom of movement and denying the same freedoms to your opponent; sometimes it is a matter of coordinating your pieces so that they are aimed at the same sector of the board; sometimes it is a matter of arranging your pawns to help achieve those same purposes for your pieces (partially taken from "Predator at the chessboard").
What this all means is that you "simply" created the "perfect" scenario for a tactical strike.