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

It's not hard...first off, some people don't initally pay attention to tactics trainer as a timed exercise.  I, for example, started off just playing them like puzzles (3 times a day, which is also detrimental to TT ratings), and I would get up and go get a drink, watch TV while doing a tactic, have conversations, whatever...

Second, TT on chess.com is fubared.  The cheating is rampant, and it makes the "average times" go way down, such that legit players are left floundering wondering how the "average" player can solve tactics so fast.  Ratings resets are even more ridiculous.  I briefly considered reseting my ratings and starting over when I realized I had screwed up my own TT rating, but then I decided that that would be just be giving credence to this messed up system.

The same thing happens with live chess.  I was too inexperienced to know that I should just play blitz only against equal and higher rated opponents like everyone else does with their settings.  I also was foolish enough to use bullet and blitz to do test runs of opening variations I was experimenting with.

Suffice to say, if ratings are all someone cares about, they can get higher ones by just nursing them along by gaming the system here.

I broke 1800 by adding these three rules to my play:

- always ask myself what is the threat after my opponent makes a move

- improving my worst placed piece before I even think about attacking

- preventing counterplay before I proceed with an attack

Idk why people think people on chess.com cheat, there is literally nothing to gain.

to cheat on tactics trainer you would still have to set up the position on your engine and that by itself takes time, already longer than the average time for some positions.

and why would somebody cheat on tactics trainer? even people with big egos can't show that off.

My time allocation for studying:

100% Openings

cornbeefhashvili wrote:

I broke 1800 by adding these three rules to my play:

- always ask myself what is the threat after my opponent makes a move

- improving my worst placed piece before I even think about attacking

- preventing counterplay before I proceed with an attack

Exactly (even if the last one is not strictly necessary; it should just be taken into consideration). The above and a general idea of pawn breaks in your opening is all you need.

There are some easier ways to do it.

Getting to class A is an attainable goal for anybody who isn't there yet.  Tactics are important, because they are always going to be in use.  Just because a tactial sequence doesn't get played out on the board doesn't mean that they aren't there.  So, yes, tactics are a big part about improving and preventing yourself from falling into traps, or making blunders etc.  I think that the improvement to Class A has a lot to do with studying strategy, and studying positional games.  As you improve you find that in order to win a game you have to press the matter a bit.  When playing at a lower level, you can sometimes rely on your opponent to make the mistakes for you, but in OTB conditions and time controls, out-maneuvering your opponent will usually be the deciding factor.

Sure, in theory I'd say it's possible for anyone.

But look at the statistics... how many people get there?

I think some people are 100% intelligent enough and motivated enough to do it, but for some reason can't get the right kind of mindset to do analysis. They're lazy in their calculation and it's something of a personality problem to fix it, and it holds them back.

Although I have to say I haven't coached anyone so maybe I'm wrong, but from chatting with people that's what it seems like to me.

Thank you for that bit of wisdom owltuna.

ChessTempo has a new feature called "mixed" mode.  Sometimes there is a winning tactic, sometimes you just have to play the best move to hold the position & not be worse.  I'm much worse @ it than regular tactics but all the more reason to do it.  I also notice I'm much more cautious when I'm not sure there's definitely a tactic (take fewer risks).

I think the fine art of knowing when to look & where to look & trusting your calculation is the ultimate pattern recognition (beyond just memorizing some mating patterns).

I used to practice tactics and stufff but it never helped me.

Once I stopped caring, I gained 400 OTB rating points.

For the record count me among those of the opinion that Michael De La Maza cheated. See http://empiricalrabbit.blogspot.com/2012/06/michael-de-la-maza-verdict.html

Others have tried MDLM's tactics program without his success, so I wouldn't base arguments on MDLM.

It's true that you can't advance without improving your tactics. But that doesn't mean that you must study tactics to advance.

Most of my tournament play was in the seventies. I hit 1759 USCF back then without ever studying tactics. My friends went farther -- as high as 2189. None of us studied tactics. We just played as hard as we could, studied catch-as-catch-can between tournaments, played speed chess and got better at tactics along the way.

That said, I think anyone eager to improve ought to be doing tactics exercises almost everyday. I didn't do so back then, but I do now.

Interesting link, I didn't know MDLM was suspicious in this way.

I don't think he cheated.  Look at his USCF player card.  It's not like he gained 400 points in 2 tournaments.  If he cheated, he did it in a way to make himself look like any other improving player.

Many people have tried his tactics program and seen some success, just not the same success MDLM did because, as was stated earlier in the thread, even MDLM didn't follow his own program.

Read the link, he disagrees on this point.

leiph: Well, Dan Hesiman has defended MDLM and that ain't hay.

But the whole fairy tale story smells to me. Some 1350 player gets hot on tactics, studies his behind off for months, marches through a series of tournaments winning more and more games, pushes his rating up to 2041, then emerges victorious with a $10,000 section prize and quits playing chess forever. Really?

Then you discover the guy has an MIT Ph.D in computer science and his thesis was on a chess program he wrote. Hmm.

MIT students are notorious for their intellectual pranks putting one over the rest of the world. They have used card counting to beat casinos in blackjack and were so successful the rules were changed and a movie was made about it. Back in the sixties an MIT student built and used a wearable computer for beating roulette.

So I see it as an Occam's Razor question. Did MDLM use a tactics study program to get results that no one else in the world has been able to duplicate or is he just another MIT student with a clever scam?

And isn't it convenient that MDLM stopped playing tournament chess so no one can watch him as he plays in a full, bulky sweater while everyone else is in short-sleeves?

Nor can his games be checked for signs of computer assistance.

Like many chess players that don't understand computers, you assume that the only way to cheat at TT is to set up the tactic by hand on an engine ;)...

The main cheats that go on actually involve being able to completely skip problems you can't solve without showing that you "missed" the problem at all.  Get a tactic puzzle, try to solve it for 10-15 seconds...didn't get it?  Just drop that one without statistical penalty and get a new one.  Rinse and repeat until you get problems that you already can solve (even if just by having been presented it before).  That technique, coupled with ratings resets, makes creating a pristine TT rating very easy.

Gaming the live ratings is also very easy.  If I were to dump this account and create a brand new one, I could have a higher rating than I do now, in about half the time.  ELO/Glicko ratings systems are designed to reflect the results of player pools where players are matched with players of their own rating on average over time...not cherry-picking games against only equal or higher ratings.

Your own standard rating is a perfect example.  By allowing yourself to play opponents at the 1000 rating level, you are listed at 1500-ish even with a 9-0 record.  If instead you had from the get-go changed your matchup parameters to always match up with equal or better rated opponents, you'd probably be 1800+ at the same 9-0 record.  Same player, wildy different ratings result.

As for thinking people don't cheat...maybe you should read the cheating forum sometime.  It's well established that 10%-20% of the userbase here are using engines.  I invite you to grab a PGN of any of the public votechess games and follow it through with an engine.  You will see play levels that would leave Carlsen choking on dust...