Signs you're a bad chess player

e4nf3

Just three more moves than a fool's mate.

If you don't mind my asking...

You are over 2,000 in tactical training...and it looks like you did a lot of hard work to get there...yet you are only 1259 in standard play.

What gives? The tactical training isn't the 95% of chess, as advertised? 

P.S.: I ask because I have a few theories of my own.

chessgdt
e4nf3 wrote:

Just three more moves than a fool's mate.

If you don't mind my asking...

You are over 2,000 in tactical training...and it looks like you did a lot of hard work to get there...yet you are only 1259 in standard play.

What gives? The tactical training isn't the 95% of chess, as advertised? 

P.S.: I ask because I have a few theories of my own.

I rarely do live chess standard these days, I played that like a year ago I think. (I dont know since my premium expired)

chessgdt

My rating is 1469 FYI.

downtown65
[COMMENT DELETED]
e4nf3
chessgdt wrote:

My rating is 1469 FYI.

But that doesn't answer the question... How is it possible to get over 2000 on tactics training...which we are told is 95% of chess...but be unable to break 1500 in game play?


This is a generalized question, not intended for you in particular...except that your particular experience may shed some light on the matter.

I got up to about 1800 on chess tactics. Then they replaced the puzzles with different ones. Now I am having difficulty in getting above 1500. I do believe that I will get back to 1800...but only after a lot of work.

Tactics training, seems to me, requires the one perfect combination...and to get it in blitz timing. In regular game play, one might get a good, playable combination...let's say, win the Q but didn't get the mate...and go on to win.

Also, in TT, if it takes an extra 20 or 30 seconds to get the exact, perfect combo...your goose is cooked and you might just as well have gotten the absolute worst answer.

And there is more...

Maybe one gets really good at the tactical puzzles from repeated play...I see the same puzzles repeat...whereby one knows the right answer immediately (the smothered mate by knight is one of them) and the rating goes up.

Yet, in real play, you rarely see most of these tactical situations...and you don't have knowledge as to how to create them...and if you don't know openings or endings because you spent 95% of your time practicing tactics...well, then, you are screwed.

So...what can you tell me from your experience? Thanks.

P.S:

What constitutes a bad chess player? Maybe it's someone who plays like a pro during "book" while using a database in correspondence chess but falls off a cliff on the first move out of book.

Or the 2,500 tactical training whiz who falls for opening traps, every time, such as fool's mate or scholar's mate because he didn't feel it necessary to learn openings.

Or the guy who loses in the endgame when it is K with 2 pawns and the enemy who only has K and 1 pawn...because he spent 95% of his time practicing midgame tactics and didn't think end game calculations mattered.

Yeah...I know these aren't funny. But, they are sad.

I'm starting to think that spending a lot of time on tactical puzzles is helpful...but it sure isn't the "95%". That's just a big, fat lie.

bobbyDK
e4nf3 wrote:
chessgdt wrote:

My rating is 1469 FYI.

But that doesn't answer the question... How is it possible to get over 2000 on tactics training...which we are told is 95% of chess...but be unable to break 1500 in game play?

This is a generalized question, not intended for you in particular...except that your particular experience may shed some light on the matter.

I got up to about 1800 on chess tactics. Then they replaced the puzzles with different ones. Now I am having difficulty in getting above 1500. I do believe that I will get back to 1800...but only after a lot of work.

Tactics training, seems to me, requires the one perfect combination...and to get it in blitz timing. In regular game play, one might get a good, playable combination...let's say, win the Q but didn't get the mate...and go on to win.

Also, in TT, if it takes an extra 20 or 30 seconds to get the exact, perfect combo...your goose is cooked and you might just as well have gotten the absolute worst answer.

And there is more...

Maybe one gets really good at the tactical puzzles from repeated play...I see the same puzzles repeat...whereby one knows the right answer immediately (the smothered mate by knight is one of them) and the rating goes up.

Yet, in real play, you rarely see most of these tactical situations...and you don't have knowledge as to how to create them...and if you don't know openings or endings because you spent 95% of your time practicing tactics...well, then, you are screwed.

So...what can you tell me from your experience? Thanks.

P.S:

What constitutes a bad chess player? Maybe it's someone who plays like a pro during "book" while using a database in correspondence chess but falls off a cliff on the first move out of book.

Or the 2,500 tactical training whiz who falls for opening traps, every time, such as fool's mate or scholar's mate because he didn't feel it necessary to learn openings.

Or the guy who loses in the endgame when it is K with 2 pawns and the enemy who only has K and 1 pawn...because he spent 95% of his time practicing midgame tactics and didn't think end game calculations mattered.

Yeah...I know these aren't funny. But, they are sad.

I'm starting to think that spending a lot of time on tactical puzzles is helpful...but it sure isn't the "95%". That's just a big, fat lie.

if you choose opening that doesn't lead to tactical shots you can have 3000 in Tactic trainer but it doesn't matter you will not find a tactic.
even though 95% if you are rated 1200 when it comes to opening you will not get any good game play.
strategy is more important than tactics. if you choose the wrong plan the wrong strategy and opening . your tt means nothing.
your rating is a skill is made of those component:

opening phase :rating strategy:rating tactics endgame and many other factors. is kind of easy to solve tactics in tt cause you know they are there in the exercise. in game no one will say to you please look closely there is a tactical shot.  

e4nf3

My thoughts, exactly.

And, I'm not knocking tactical training...it's fun and it is helpful not, only in pattern recognition, speed training and spatial awareness, as well (as in "darn"...I shoulda seen that bishop coming from the far corner).

But...I do think that "tactics are 95% of chess" is a bold faced lie. You just further explained some of the reasons why.

kelio_will

The worst chess player: disconnectors.

e4nf3

You've always considered yourself as being the worst chess player in the world.

You just played Ed. Now you are not quite so certain.

"Thanks, Ed," you tell him with a smirk on your face.

..and, for the very first time in your life you add: "gg".

sanan22
e4nf3 wrote:

Just three more moves than a fool's mate.

If you don't mind my asking...

You are over 2,000 in tactical training...and it looks like you did a lot of hard work to get there...yet you are only 1259 in standard play.

What gives? The tactical training isn't the 95% of chess, as advertised? 

P.S.: I ask because I have a few theories of my own.

"Tactics flow from a superior position"
(Bobby Fischer)

bobbyDK
sanan22 wrote:
e4nf3 wrote:

Just three more moves than a fool's mate.

If you don't mind my asking...

You are over 2,000 in tactical training...and it looks like you did a lot of hard work to get there...yet you are only 1259 in standard play.

What gives? The tactical training isn't the 95% of chess, as advertised? 

P.S.: I ask because I have a few theories of my own.

"Tactics flow from a superior position"
(Bobby Fischer)

exactly that is the reason the opening plays a big role. and it is hard to play any tactic if your opponent knows an opening better than you and you don't know you are just on autopilot in someones else pet opening thus he will get a superior position . Openings are a result of grandmaster games and the moves in the opening is played on grandmaster level.

LeakestWink

signs you should stick to chess and leave comedy to the pros:

1. you posted in this thread (I include myself).

e4nf3

Don't be so disparaging of yourself. Get into the spirit of things. 

For example, your dour ogre avatar is funny. Your bullet rating is even funnier.

sabo04
[COMMENT DELETED]
sabo04

My 3 year old daughter ready to kick my ass. LOL She decided to attack me with a KING LOL

 


chessgdt
e4nf3 wrote:
chessgdt wrote:

My rating is 1469 FYI.

But that doesn't answer the question... How is it possible to get over 2000 on tactics training...which we are told is 95% of chess...but be unable to break 1500 in game play?


This is a generalized question, not intended for you in particular...except that your particular experience may shed some light on the matter.

I got up to about 1800 on chess tactics. Then they replaced the puzzles with different ones. Now I am having difficulty in getting above 1500. I do believe that I will get back to 1800...but only after a lot of work.

Tactics training, seems to me, requires the one perfect combination...and to get it in blitz timing. In regular game play, one might get a good, playable combination...let's say, win the Q but didn't get the mate...and go on to win.

Also, in TT, if it takes an extra 20 or 30 seconds to get the exact, perfect combo...your goose is cooked and you might just as well have gotten the absolute worst answer.

And there is more...

Maybe one gets really good at the tactical puzzles from repeated play...I see the same puzzles repeat...whereby one knows the right answer immediately (the smothered mate by knight is one of them) and the rating goes up.

Yet, in real play, you rarely see most of these tactical situations...and you don't have knowledge as to how to create them...and if you don't know openings or endings because you spent 95% of your time practicing tactics...well, then, you are screwed.

So...what can you tell me from your experience? Thanks.

P.S:

What constitutes a bad chess player? Maybe it's someone who plays like a pro during "book" while using a database in correspondence chess but falls off a cliff on the first move out of book.

Or the 2,500 tactical training whiz who falls for opening traps, every time, such as fool's mate or scholar's mate because he didn't feel it necessary to learn openings.

Or the guy who loses in the endgame when it is K with 2 pawns and the enemy who only has K and 1 pawn...because he spent 95% of his time practicing midgame tactics and didn't think end game calculations mattered.

Yeah...I know these aren't funny. But, they are sad.

I'm starting to think that spending a lot of time on tactical puzzles is helpful...but it sure isn't the "95%". That's just a big, fat lie.

I play "up" a section normally at chess tourneys. and tactics trainer is just easier for me since I know theres a tactic there.

cabadenwurt

This is a fun thread, mind you I have only read a few of the 70 plus pages. Even " Old Grumpy " ( aka Mr.e4--- ) is getting into the act, telling jokes and also funny stories about Bobby Fischer. Who knew that Mr.e4--- even had a sense of humour ? So let's keep the Fun with Chess going, hmmm Fun with Chess, interesting idea  lol.  

e4nf3

Hey...be nice.

cabadenwurt

No that was a compliment, I enjoyed your stories about Bobby Fischer and his cute little Pocket Chess Set, etc, very funny items.

e4nf3

Back in 1972, Bobby warming up for the big game, huddled under the magic chess blanket bestowed upon him by his best pal, your uncle Louie.

I think he's up in the Himalayas...above the clouds...by the look of things: