Can you really become a class A player by studying tactics?

Sort:
TheAdultProdigy
Apotek wrote:

I beg to disagree.what you are saying is that tactics is everything.Well,it isn't, at least for humans.getting obsessed with tactics at the expense of other aspects of the game  can only result in deterioration of your play.

 
 

I think the point of this discussion is more about whether tactics can move one to A-Class and into Expert.  I agree with you.  Only learning tactics, nothing else, cost me in games against players who traded like bandits and got into an endgame quickly, or who did well with more positional and closed games.  Nonetheless, I whole-heartedly agree with the moderately well-known teacher in the Pittsburgh area, IM Jerry Meyers, who says there's no sense in learning too much else, other than tactics, because he's seen a slew of students from USCF 400-2000 squander games incessantly in a single move.  Club-level/class-play is decided by tactics, and learning them can bide time until the opponent makes the mistake.  This has been my experience.

SmyslovFan
Milliern wrote:
...

Rex, I think the thing you are missing is that you are looking at my total stats from a two-year period.  Of course my stats from earlier in that two year stretch drag down the totals.  What you need to do is look at my stats from my more recent performances.  My success against 2000-2099 level players was 21.4%, and that's throwing in a loss or two from earlier that year.  That was from when I was studying NOTHING but tactics.  If I can score 1.5/5 against USCF 2000-2099, I think that proves my point.  Thanks for the somewhat clumsy observation... Confirmation bias will do that to you.

Since you brought this up, you have won precisely two games out of 41 tries against players rated +1800 according to the USCF. You've never played against anyone rated +2200 in an official USCF game. You have a lifetime 2-7-32 record against +1800 players. That's a 13.4% record against players rated +1800 For players rated 1800-1899, you have a score of 12%, which equates to a performance rating  of 1504, 346 points lower on average than your opponents. 

For reference: according to USCF my record against players rated 1800-1999 since 1991, when they started keeping online records, is just over 67%. It's nothing special. That's about average for an expert chess player. It's ~125 performance points above them on average.

Uhohspaghettio1

coalescenet

I think the point of this discussion is more about whether tactics can move one to A-Class and into Expert.  I agree with you.  Only learning tactics, nothing else, cost me in games against players who traded like bandits and got into an endgame quickly, or who did well with more positional and closed games.  

This is bad..  you are probably losing a lot of games from bad positional play.  Improving positional play and longer term plans is important.  Besides, you will never get over 2000 by just tactics, you can't win games that way.  The way you beat stronger players is by strategically beating them with ideas, not winning because of a basic tactic.  

SilentKnighte5
Milliern wrote:
Reb wrote:
Milliern wrote:

I can tell you from experience, it's an absolute fact that all you need to study is tactics.  I went from a little over 1000 USCF to 1600 on tactics alone, and I will break into the A-class (or near it) in my next tournament.  You might FEEL as though studying those positions help you, and maybe they do to some inefficaciously minimal extent, but they don't move you toward A-class as tactics do.

 

It's like Michael De La Maza said, class play is almost always decided by tactics.  I'll take it further: all class play is decided by basic tactics, whether executed or missed.  I love only having played the game for a few years and smashing thes players who have spent thousands of ours on positions, master gams, and openings.  If you can't gain 200+ points in a year while being a class player, you haven't caught on.  TACTICS.

Your records on uschess.org shows you have less than 20% against B class players and less than 15% against A class players so apparently you havent caught on too well either ..... You cant become an A class player like that and certainly have no chance if you don't play otb tournies which you havent done for some years now .... 

Rex, I think the thing you are missing is that you are looking at my total stats from a two-year period.  Of course my stats from earlier in that two year stretch drag down the totals.  What you need to do is look at my stats from my more recent performances.  My success against 2000-2099 level players was 21.4%, and that's throwing in a loss or two from earlier that year.  That was from when I was studying NOTHING but tactics.  If I can score 1.5/5 against USCF 2000-2099, I think that proves my point.  Thanks for the somewhat clumsy observation... Confirmation bias will do that to you.

Isn't getting to 1800 the only way to prove your point? 

Apotek

To Milliern:thank you for taking the trouble to respond to my post,it seems we can agree then!By the way maybe I did miss the point that we were talking about tactics getting you to 1800.Agreed then,tactics may well be the key to getting there.But to get higher than that,surely you can't ignore the other aspects of the game!

 
 
Rogue_King

While you can study them separately, tactical and positional chess are just 2 sides of the same coin, middlegames. Better positions produce winning tactics, and tactical resources are used to justify good and even audacious positional moves. If you are weak in either area you will get punished, and will not be able to play the best moves in a given middlegame.

 

Tactics are best studied via puzzles (something like 10-30 a day depending on the level), and the longer reaching strategic concepts should be explained and then demonstrated with an example game(s) in my opinion.

TheAdultProdigy
SmyslovFan wrote:
Milliern wrote:
...

Rex, I think the thing you are missing is that you are looking at my total stats from a two-year period.  Of course my stats from earlier in that two year stretch drag down the totals.  What you need to do is look at my stats from my more recent performances.  My success against 2000-2099 level players was 21.4%, and that's throwing in a loss or two from earlier that year.  That was from when I was studying NOTHING but tactics.  If I can score 1.5/5 against USCF 2000-2099, I think that proves my point.  Thanks for the somewhat clumsy observation... Confirmation bias will do that to you.

Since you brought this up, you have won precisely two games out of 41 tries against players rated +1800 according to the USCF. You've never played against anyone rated +2200 in an official USCF game. You have a lifetime 2-7-32 record against +1800 players. That's a 13.4% record against players rated +1800 For players rated 1800-1899, you have a score of 12%, which equates to a performance rating  of 1504, 346 points lower on average than your opponents. 

 

I hope I don't have to do all of the logic, here.  You are talking about a span of time that covers the totality of all of my performances, including the ones from the beginning of the two-year span when I started playing, back when I was 1050-1100 strength.  Your attempt to put a negative spin on things is a little silly.  Consider one of my last performances, the 11th Fred Sorensen Memorial, in which I scored 2.5/4 against ratings of 756, 1787, 1772, and 1892.  That's an 1817 performance, fyi.  Additionally, those two B-class players knew me, and knew to steer the game into an endgame immediately, whereas I destroyed, tactically massacred, that A-class player who didn't know me. 


My point will be proven in a few months.  Enjoy.

leiph18
Milliern wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Milliern wrote:
...

Rex, I think the thing you are missing is that you are looking at my total stats from a two-year period.  Of course my stats from earlier in that two year stretch drag down the totals.  What you need to do is look at my stats from my more recent performances.  My success against 2000-2099 level players was 21.4%, and that's throwing in a loss or two from earlier that year.  That was from when I was studying NOTHING but tactics.  If I can score 1.5/5 against USCF 2000-2099, I think that proves my point.  Thanks for the somewhat clumsy observation... Confirmation bias will do that to you.

Since you brought this up, you have won precisely two games out of 41 tries against players rated +1800 according to the USCF. You've never played against anyone rated +2200 in an official USCF game. You have a lifetime 2-7-32 record against +1800 players. That's a 13.4% record against players rated +1800 For players rated 1800-1899, you have a score of 12%, which equates to a performance rating  of 1504, 346 points lower on average than your opponents. 

 

I hope I don't have to do all of the logic, here.  You are talking about a span of time that covers the totality of all of my performances, including the ones from the beginning of the two-year span when I started playing, back when I was 1050-1100 strength.  Your attempt to put a negative spin on things is a little silly.  Consider one of my last performances, the 11th Fred Sorensen Memorial, in which I scored 2.5/4 against ratings of 756, 1787, 1772, and 1892.  That's an 1817 performance, fyi.  Additionally, those two B-class players knew me, and knew to steer the game into an endgame immediately, whereas I destroyed, tactically massacred, that A-class player who didn't know me. 


My point will be proven in a few months.  Enjoy.

Come on guy, that tournament was 5 years ago. For all we know you're a GM by now, or inactivity has dragged you down to 1200.

As for what you did and didn't study... chess players seem notoriously guarded about the specifics. You say you only did X and never, under any circumstances did Y? Fine. But I for one never believe anyone... even if you said you did something totally normal.

Rogue_King is one of the few people I've seen give a detailed (and believable) account.

I_Am_Second

Wow...so when do we start comparing anatomy size?  How much we can bench press? Whos wife/girlfriend is hotter? And who has the biggest TV?

Pulpofeira
I_Am_Second escribió:

Wow...so when do we start comparing anatomy size?  How much we can bench press? Whos wife/girlfriend is hotter? And who has the biggest TV?

Make sure of specify if we are talking about inches or centimeters here.

I_Am_Second
Pulpofeira wrote:
I_Am_Second escribió:

Wow...so when do we start comparing anatomy size?  How much we can bench press? Whos wife/girlfriend is hotter? And who has the biggest TV?

Make sure of specify if we are talking about inches or centimeters here.

My "rating" is bigger than yours, so i cant talk to you...or would that be bigga?

AKAL1

Milliern wrote:

 Consider one of my last performances, the 11th Fred Sorensen Memorial, in which I scored 2.5/4 against ratings of 756, 1787, 1772, and 1892.  That's an 1817 performance, fyi.  Additionally, those two B-class players knew me, and knew to steer the game into an endgame immediately, whereas I destroyed, tactically massacred, that A-class player who didn't know me. 

So your point is that you can beat any expert, but not in an endgame? That's proving the point: you can't get to class A without endgame/positional knowledge.

Pulpofeira

No subtleties about English language for me, sorry.

I_Am_Second
Pulpofeira wrote:

No subtleties about English language for me, sorry.

No problem, just a bad attempt at humor.

SilentKnighte5

Your blog is very good reading.


You haven't studied chess or played in a tournament in 4 years.  Your strength back then was 1600ish.  

You believe you're 400 points stronger than you were then.

You think that gaining 200 points in a year is completely unheard of for an adult.

You intend to play in the World Open this year to prove you're a class A player.

Last year's winner of the U1600 section jumped to just a hair under 1800 and went over 1800 a few tournaments later IIRC.  By rating, you'd be a class A player, but to me, you'd have to maintain that rating playing well against other class A players.  If you jump up to 1800 but get beat back down to 1600 and change when playing A/B players regularly, you weren't that strong to begin with.  At least not consistently.

In support of your 400 points stronger belief, you cite the fact that you've been beating 1500ish players in "intermediate time controls" which I will assume is somewhere in the G60 range.  Also your online blitz is 400 points higher than it used to be.  So you ARE playing chess.

Do you plan to train at all before going to the World Open?  Your blog states that you're going to get an assessment from an IM about your strength.  If you start taking lessons and training for 6 months, how does that prove you're an 1800 player right now?  Also, if you start taking lessons with an IM, that's not just doing tactics anymore.

Gaining 200 points as an adult chess player is far from unheard of, especally when youre at the low end of the rating curve.  Points come very easy up to 1600.  According to NM Todd Bardwick, he expects any 1000 adult get to 1600 after 1-2 years of playing, which is exactly what you did. (source: http://www.coloradomasterchess.com/Informant/Ratings%20and%20Expectations.htm)

You certainly not lacking in the ego, which is probably a good thing in general.  It's a great motivator.  I expect you to get to class A just because you're willing to put the work in.  I'll be following your progress.

SilentKnighte5
Milliern wrote:
 Consider one of my last performances, the 11th Fred Sorensen Memorial, in which I scored 2.5/4 against ratings of 756, 1787, 1772, and 1892.  That's an 1817 performance, fyi.  Additionally, those two B-class players knew me, and knew to steer the game into an endgame immediately, whereas I destroyed, tactically massacred, that A-class player who didn't know me. 


 

You remind me of a gambler who only talks about his wins.  You cite the Fred Sorensen Memorial as evidence of your strength (1800 performance).  Your next tournament you lost to a 1500 and drew a 1600. What happened a few months later?  You lost to an 1800, 1600, 1500 and drew a 1500.  Your only win was against a 1400 (1423 performance).  You can't cherry pick the good performances as evidence of your strength.  A big key is going to be consistency.  

You also had two tournaments when you lost in the 1st round (vs a 2000 and 1700) and appear to have withdrawn.  Are you going to drop out of the world open if you lose in the 1st or 2nd round?

Pulpofeira
I_Am_Second escribió:
Pulpofeira wrote:

No subtleties about English language for me, sorry.

No problem, just a bad attempt at humor.

I guessed it, but I'm sure it wasn't so bad. :)

SmyslovFan

My best performance ever was 5-0 against a group of experts and masters for a performance rating of +2500. I even repeated that performance rating in another tournament. 

I'm not +2500 strength. 

SilentKnighte5
leiph18 wrote:
As for what you did and didn't study... chess players seem notoriously guarded about the specifics. You say you only did X and never, under any circumstances did Y? Fine. But I for one never believe anyone... even if you said you did something totally normal.
Rogue_King is one of the few people I've seen give a detailed (and believable) account.

 

Our very own Milliern has written several glowing reviews on Amazon for both Pandolfini's Endgame Course and Silman's Complete Endgame Course.  In the review for Silman, he compares the book to Van Perlo and Dvorertsky, which are both *drumroll* books on the endgame.

http://www.amazon.com/Pandolfinis-Endgame-Course-Concepts-Explained/product-reviews/0671656880/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R3SPYO0KJYRRIS

http://www.amazon.com/Silmans-Complete-Endgame-Course-Beginner/dp/B00CAYOR3A/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1420678792&sr=8-2&keywords=silman%27s+endgame+course#customerReviews