Can intelligent person suck at chess, forever?

That sounds to me more like a definition of Combination.  

Of course.

Creativity, Memory, Concentration, Stamina, Mental Strength, Logic, Pattern Recognition (things required to be good at chess) =/= Intelligence.

Of course.  I do.  

and he wrote:

"In a nutshell: A combination has tactics (and a sacrifice), but tactics don’t necessarily have anything to do with a combination."

...

"Personally, I view tactics as a mix of all the tactical motifs, plus calculations (awareness) that allows you to know whether attacking an enemy unit is effective, while also knowing whether all enemy attacks are to be taken seriously (meaning you need to prevent the threat) or laughed at (meaning you can ignore it)."

A tactic isn't a series of forcing moves.  That's a combination.... however, the forcing part is probably due to tactical consideration.   A combination isn't a tactic, but they usually employ tactics or tactical motifs (fork, back-rank mate, a skewer, etc.)

Tactics is when you calculate moves whose consequences are forced.

You gave me the link.  I quoted it.

I posted his conclusion or summation from the quotes [which was followed by, "There are a lot of definitions about tactics that are completely useless (and do more to cloud the issue than clarify it).] Anyone who want can go read the article.

well, it just so happens that most of the lower rated puzzles are tactics AND combinations. its the strong ones with many sidelines and silent moves that seem to break the pattern.

If you think too much You can simply play classical time format chess.

There is not such thing as "sacrifices", only delayed gains (at best and when the thing works).

Firstly, thanks for the detailed reply on my previous post! I really liked what you wrote about the various levels of threats.

Now, about your post above about class E players, have heard it a thousand times, but still don’t get it. My problem is that when I analyze the games after, rarely I find any tactics and very rarely tactics missed.  How being good at tactics will help me to raze hundreds of points above my rank and become a better player? The analysis only reveals that I might have won 1 out of 10 of the games I lost, by being better at tactics. How can that 1 every 10 lost games be that significant? Maybe, it doesn’t apply to all. I lose mostly because of time, over pressing, over reacting and not giving the attention required to my opponent’s moves.  Many times I lose, because my opponent played really well (talking for 1000 blitz, hahaha, but they still play really well and even the analysis agrees).

I have a controversial explanation about that too, about why 1 or 2 games every 10 can make a huge difference in rating, at least here in chess.com and in rate levels between 700 – 1800. Because:

• It is very crowed at those ratings and the skill gap is really small, even though the rating gap can be huge
• chess is like poker (on lower ratings) and most games are decided by “luck” or factors that you can’t entirely control. Consistently, winning the games which are under your power to win can lead to huge rating improvements, even if those games are relatively few.

If what I say above is true, which you will most probably disagree, then I understand that improvement in tactics can lead to improvement in skill and rating and tactics practice is of the most significance. If not, then I don’t get how can tactics improve my blitz game (I still do tactics anyway). I have about 1800 in chess tempo and about 1100 blitz rating. Tactics don’t seem to help me, maybe others, but not me.

Will appreciate your opinion, since what you said about tactics in lower levels is a super common theme, but it doesn’t seem to apply to me.

how much studying do you really need to reach 1500 though? if anyone needed to study to reach 1800, i would say they have no chess talent (this is a different claim from "anyone who studied to get to 1800 has no talent).

one of the boradest meanings of the term intelligence is the capacity to use information for a given aim or goal. a person with high intelligence should be more capable of gathering knowledge from merely playing than most. if you add analyzing your own games by yourself/with coach/with engine. even more so. this is probably why its a little hard to believe how ph.ds with less than 1500 strength while trying to get better are even POSSIBLE.

my father for example, never studied chess or did tactics, or even play that much other than with me and the rare other player, but i would put his peak at 1600- even 1700 in strength because he had a knack for tactical combinations and learned a lot about openings and strategic ideas while playing me with so many different openings. he learned a lot "through osmosis" and didnt need any studying. you would expect high iq individuals who play all day  for  years to be able to do that.

 Bobby Talparov, das ist gut scheiss, man!

Unless a person practices for improvement, then he/she will never improve no matter what IQ.

thanks yall for the commentary this post written 752018

Everybody is different. No two are alike. So we need to do some experiments. Just like in bodybuilding; if you follow all the workouts of Arnold Zchwarzenegger including his diet and suplements, it does not mean that you will have the same body as Arnold Zchwarzenegger.

No, but most likely it will be a fit one (unless your back cracks at certain point).

I've known Ph.Ds who love the game. They study the game, they play the game, they do everything they're supposed to do to get better at the game, and yet remain below 1900 USCF. I've seen MBAs and others do the same. 

And I've seen people who appear to be lazy kids who couldn't come up with a deep thought to save their lives become masters. It takes a special kind of intelligence to become a great chess player. 

Sucking/being good are relative concepts.

If by good" you mean "having a fide title" and you don't start to learn chess before 20 you're busted, regardless of your academic background.

voltaire sucked at chess and tried to learn it without success