Yeah I do,I work problems on Chesstempo every day and if you want to set it to "1 move" problems,I can show you how to do that but you have to buy an account first.  My advice is to do it,you should be able to afford 35 bucks a year,that's not bad for a "gold" account there,it's worth it's weight in gold and I'm becoming much more tactically aware. 

To me Chesstempo is better then books because you'll always get the problems at random and unless you cut up your book and make "flash cards" out of it,you'll always get the problems in the same order,which is fine,but not as good as getting the problems at random.  

Your mind must be empty at first and then when you see a problem,you either recognize that pattern or you don't,that's better to me then,recognizing a problem because you know it's number 20 and you know that number 20 is going to be this or that.  I mean that's alright but not as good as getting problems at random in my opinion at least. 

As far as books is concerned, 4 time world women's Champion Susan Polgar has a good book on 1 move problems for beginners,it's called,

"A world champion's guide to chess: step by step instructions for winning chess the polgar way" ....

Yeah the title is long and it's BS,this book is just the beginning and she doesn't give you step by step instructions,she just gives you a bunch of really easy 1 move tactics to solve,so you can start there.  Also her father wrote a book that chess players called the "brick",it has like 4000 something problems in it,but it's mainly mate problems but the first 306 are recommended for beginners because they are mate in 1s,the rest are mate in 2.  I just don't like the way the answers are given in this book.  

I know a few other good "beginner" books if you're interested,but that's good enough for right now I think.  If you don't know where to buy them or can't find them at your local book store,then remember, amazon is your best friend lol.  

2. "Tempo" is critical. Tempo refers to (as far as I could understand it) the idea of being "one move ahead of the opponent" all the time. Specifically, by way of example, I have moved a piece into a place that forces you to move, (because of a checkmate (or potential), or threat of loss of material or position). I now have "tempo", meaning I have you marching to MY command. If I put you in a situation that takes you two moves to get out of, and one that may cost you material or space, it GIVES me two moves to set up for the next punch, which should buy me time to set up the next attack, and so on. 

9. White starts off with tempo, black must find a way to take over tempo if possible. My friend use to say "I just set up and defend (if black) and wait till white over extends itself, then take tempo and run from there" (paraphrasing -horribly).

You are describing initiative, not "tempo".

Try the following to see more of what tempo means:

That kind of what I said, and kind of not what I said - having mentioned the point that white wasted three moves, meaning that black is now three moves "ahead" in tempo, and three steps closer to a developed position, leaving white to be forced to catch up and regain tempo. 

However, I see what your saying about the knights 3 moves versus the other knights one move. so maybe your right. My teacher always explained that what I was discribing was called "tempo", (something he often smacked me around about when I lost it). This guy has played against the guy that was analysing games with bobby fischer in his match against russia. (the primary one - or whatever - pardon my terrible chess history) The point being that this guy lived chess. While you and I were working, he lived out of a food bank and spent his day memorizing some of the greatest games in history. 8 to 10 hours a day reading chess, playing games against himself, replaying master's games, more reading. It's all he did. Now I'm not saying your wrong, but I AM saying that that guy called it tempo, and never mentioned initiative at all. So, so far, I'm sticking to what i was taught, however, if anyone else wants to correct me, it would be welcome. I'd rather be right than worry about defending an invalid point. 

I didn't ignore you. I looked down at one point and noticed (for the first time) that there were two of your invites in the bottom of my screen. By the time I went to click them, they disappeared. I emailed you, no repy. (til now). So there you go... I play weird hours. I noticed with other players, its not easy to hook up with friends in here. It involves a lot of luck and waiting around. we'll get a game in, keep trying when you see me on.

Fair enough,I don't know about you emailing (I assume you mean messaging) me and me not replying,perhaps I didn't get the message?,a glitch maybe?.  I always reply to my messages.  

I saw you on yesterday and invited you to a game twice,again no response,no offense but I thought at the very least you could give me a response.  Hmm,where are u in the U.S and what hours do you play if I may ask? (If you like you can message me with this information if you feel it's senstive and shouldn't be put here on the post/forum,which is completely understandable,I'd probably do the very same lol) 

those two times must be the two times I was refering to. I don't know about the messaging. I'm usually around after 5 pacific, but I toss in games here and there at all hours. 

Well that could be any time,why don't you message me,we'll continue this in a message,no need to clog up the forum with this lol,this is our own personal business lol 

It's definitely important in all phases of the game,opening,middle and endgame.  However with my experience,I find that I have more tactics (or tactics that can be played against me) in the middle game but more towards the end game,meaning,the transition phase from the middle game to the end game.  

Alot of times this is where "real" chess" begins,where one player sees certain things and another doesn't and often at times my opponents blunder and I win  

Speaking of stupid people.. Why are you here? I love how people who have massive insecurity issues can finally have the sensation of being relevent via internet forums. You can come in, try and say something provocative, get some much needed attention, (good or bad attention doesn't matter to attention whores), and role out felling like you have had a meaningful converstion with someone who cares enough to be angry at whatever non-sense you drool out of your mouth. Well good for you cyed, I'm glad that the internet is here for you. You can save money on head shrinks by going online and screaming to the top of your lungs about how you matter! The problem is that when you do that, people who DO NOT feel a need to hoard attention like it was gold can see right thru you. The fact is that trolls are trolls because they DON'T have anything worth while to say. Worse, they DON'T have any friends who are worth talking to because they don't have anything to say worth listening to. This is usually because they don't have any family that gives a shiny fart for them. (you know, alcoholic parents, or single parents who don't have time to care, etc)... It is sad, so you have my sympathy little man, but the fact is that being a troll is a an empty life. Read a book. Watch some documentaries. Educate yourself on something so that you can form an opinion that matters, and when you go online, you might be able to conjure up something valuable to say, and HOLY SMOKES!! THATS what POSITIVE attention feels like!! Once you actually feel what its like to talk to someone who cares about what your saying, you might get addicted to the feeling and strive to better yourself. -Or you can just say screw it and go to another forum and try to convince other people that you matter by trying to be shocking and confrontational. Theres always another room to go to where you can get your attention fix until you figure out why it doesn't make you feel so great. 

In other news, I want to thank everyone who had something to say that was relevent. One of the things I learned right out the gate was simply a clearer definition of what "tactics" really means. (not the same as strategy). And that there are patterns in play and combinations that lead to more wins. I initially thought that short of memorizing a  thousand possible combinations I would be forced to just guess at the best move to make. Now I am finding (and recognising) that there ARE patterns in chess and that they can be constructed in ways to set up combinations and lead to wins. 

I know there are a lot of books on chess, I already have several (donated to me by my afore mentioned friend). I also saw in here mention of a site "tactic tempo" or something like that.  I was wonder what the BEST tactic training site is (your opinions please) - I didn't like the site that I went to because it gives you a problem, then you either get it right and move on, or you don't. If you don't, you move to the next problem without an explaination concerning why it was wrong. So I am interested in the BEST tactics trainer. 

Any thoughts?

Haha I blocked that little idiot,sadly here on Chess.com you can't erase forums that you start so you're pretty much stuck with w/e posts you make.  I felt that this post was relavant to Chess,I just wanted or was thinking about erasing it,just to get rid of that little idiot who,as I said I blocked.  

He probably can't read my comment here but he sure does look stupid after you tore him a new one...........again haha lol.  

 

Kingofshame, I don't know what the best tactics trainer is out there as far as the internet is concerned.  

I use Chesstempo and it's actually very good for me,as I have seen somewhat of an improvement in my play.  Some times after a really long game I like to play something that's not as "serious" and so I play alot of blitz games and tactics help alot there.   I mean they say that Chess is 99% tactics,or 99.9% of games that are played by amateurs are decided by a tactic.  Uhm........I think it's true,so,that's why I do alot of tactics myself and again I have seen an improvement.  

Now in relavance to your question as to,you wanting to know why a certain move is wrong,well I can understand that.  I mean,the more you understand in Chess the better,I think at least.  However most of these internet sites (including Chesstempo) they usually don't give you an explanation as to why a move is wrong,uhm,you'll get a long "line",a variation if you will and you kind of have to figure it out by playing out the moves either in your head or on your own board (which is preferable).   However I guess this is where a Chess coach or stronger player would come in handy as he/she could explain to you why a certain move or line is wrong and why another is preferred.  I totally understand where you're coming from though,I have alot of "what ifs" in my mind as well,not just tactics but the entire game itself.  I can't really study Chess as much as I would like to and that's a shame because I have a ton of books on this great game but I do know a few things.  

If you're looking on explanations on moves,I certainly can recommend some books for you if you're interested.  

Tactics are imprtantfor the simple fact, that they are part of learning how to play chess.  Are tactics 99% of chess? No...that makes no sense.  tactics are 1 part of the great game, just like openings, middle game, endings, strategy, etc. 

Just to give you an example.  I am a USCF A player, and i DO NOT study tactics, and i bareky study openings.  How did i get where im at? Middlegame, and end game study.

This in no way means my study method is better, it just works for me. 

To those that think chess is 99% tactics.  There is another great quote: Chess is 100% calculation.

Chess is nuts and bolts about tactics. Strategy is a means of planning a way to gain a chance for favorable tactics. Every material gain is a result of tactics. Checkmate is a tactic even. Openings revolve around getting pieces out on good squares where they prevent or promote a tactic. Chess really is 99% tactics if you think about it.

Tactics

A tactic is a short sequence of moves, usually involving an attack or capture, that attempts to make an immediate tangible gain. Tactics are the first thing you look for when considering any move. The common tactics have been given names to distinguish them. Some of the most common ones are:

• Forks
• Pins
• Skewers
• Discovered Attacks
• Removing the Guard

Strategy

When you aren't able to take advantage of a tactic, you turn to strategy. A strategy is a long term plan or idea. It is usually based on positional considerations, rather than attacks and captures. Some of the common positional elements that form the basis for strategy are:

• Piece Mobility
• Piece Safety
• King Safety
• Pawn Structure

Tactics and strategy are intertwined with one another. Strategic moves often have the objective of setting up future tactical maneuvers, and vise versa.

For the novice player, tactics is by far the more important consideration. Almost all games below the master level are won and lost through tactical mistakes. This thought should guide the study of the improving player. If you want to improve fast, study tactics!

That doesn't address what I said. In simple terms, everything you do in Chess is a means of using tactics to eventually win the game. Checkmate itself is a tactic.

I_am_second,I do agree with you,a great part of being a good Chess player is being a good positional player.  Then of course there is Chess strategy which is more of a long term plan against things like weakened squares, open/half open files,diagonals and maybe even ranks,if such a situation should arise. 

I do NOT believe that Chess is 99% of tactics,a better way to say that,it should be reworded to something like, "Most amatuer games (an amatuer is anyone under 1800) is decided by a tactic",now that I probably could believe.

I know that tactics can and often does occur in the opening phase of the game but moves like 1. e4 e5 2. Kf3 Kc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4, that's a variation of the Ruy Lopez or "Spanish" opening.  All of that there is positional Chess though,getting your pieces to good strong posts and that has nothing to do with a "tactic" itself.

So yeah that statement is definitely overrated "Chess is 99%" tactics,however I do believe that a serious and I do mean serious study of tactics should be sort after by any aspiring Chess study or junior or club player.  I have seen a leap in my play and I just mainly do tactics and go over a game or two every now and again.  

Tactics are what you need to "see" on the Chessboard,and it's these tactical "patterns" that may lead you to something else or an even more devastating tactic like checkmate which,as you said is a tactic in and of itself! 

Well put...Im not saying tactics arent important, obviously they are.  I just dont get amped up to study them, they bore me.  I would much rather study middle and end games.  Thats just me :-)

Bobby Fischer said “tactics flow from a superior position.” If you cannot reach superior positions you won’t get the opportunity to demonstrate your tactical powers!

But now that im over 1800, I also understand that i am going to really need to bone up on tactics and openings. 

The game there is a good example of why one should study tactics,it's also a good example of why one needs positional play as well,if any of you like,I can share some of my thoughts during the game.  It's also a very good example of why NOT to push pawns in the opening,it ruins your position and ultimately it will probably end up cost you the game later on when the lines open up etc.  

It's funny too because towards the end of the game there,I was looking at a fork but then I noticed it was a mate in 2 instead,he was none the wiser lol.  His problem was that he should have NEVER let that knight sit there and fester so to speak in the middle of his position like that.  Notice on move 15 how I PROMPTLY removed his knight,and the move before that,I anticipated the knight going to the center and moved my bishop,which ultimately helped me checkmate him .   

Funny example of how violating every opening principle spells doom.