I Hate Tactics

Which is why I will probably remain a grand patzer for life. Yes, I do study tactics, but solving stand alone tactic positions that have no common thread with my opening plan, mid game plan or ending seems completely pointless, lol. Then, there's tactics apps which time you. To me, that is also dumb. When you're playing a game, you already know your piece count, general plan, and are already looking at tactical possibilities. So what sense does it make to time a stand alone tactics position, when you have to spend time to assess the board situation before you can begin to look at raw tactics. I mean, sure, there's easy tactics that you see right away no matter what, but something that an elite master might have spent five or ten minutes on, they give you two or three minutes for the whole thing, lol. Am I completely wrong? Let me have it, lol.

I feel *exactly* the same. I hate being timed, I hate being rated. I believe that if you play a lot you'll have exactly the same results

No this is a very good point. There are flaws and limitations in just studying raw tactics this way, better to study the whole game in some way by going over annotated games or some such method, (though some stand alone tactics are still useful..)

chess tactics.com has some more challenging ones that come from games.

I think most people here agree with you about the faults of Tactics Trainer.

There's another problem with all tactics problems, a problem I haven't seen anybody mention yet: the desirability of knowing the entire preceding history of moves within the game. For example, I once asked myself how *I* could ever play a game like Fischer's Game of the Century. How did he *know* that he could mate with four minor pieces in his opponent's territory after letting his queen get captured? I believe the answer is what I just mentioned: his opponent made at least two major mistakes in the preceding moves, and Fischer kept a mental tally of such mistakes. Experience has taught me that one major mistake = a certain loss, but two major mistakes = a spectacular loss. Somewhere, somehow, grandmasters must learn that knowledge, although I've never seen it mentioned in writing. That implies that a spectacular win was there in Fischer's game, tactical in nature, just waiting to be discovered. Fischer knew that, and simply reasoned out how to exploit the situation.

Therefore being given a single position doesn't give you all the clues about the type of win that is waiting for you. Win of one pawn for a winning endgame? Win of a queen? Mate in three? This observation has interesting implications. For example, in FEN notation it is necessary to document in that text some of the preceding game history, like whether each opponent has castled, or is able to castle, and how many moves since the last unit capture. Although it isn't *required* to know how many mistakes have been made, and of how much severity, that is important heuristic information in practice. Maybe what I'm saying is that an interesting possibility would be a "heuristic FEN" that gave subjective game history as well as objective game history, for any given position.

P.S.--

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008361

Sqod. What I do is I use chesstempo mixed mode and after every puzzle I have a few minutes 'post mortem' with the puzzle. This involves going over some of the main alternative lines - whatever interests me in the situation and also in quickly flicking over the whole game in order to get a general feel of it. Then of course there's always just going over annotated master games.

The presence of tactics mixed with the presence of positional play is rather strange in chess. I think of the analogy of two guys falling through the center of a very long tube while fighting each other, and each guy is coated with Velcro hooks while the inside lining of the tube is filled with Velcro loops. As soon as either combatant touches the side, he comes to a sudden halt, largely immobilized, and is then at the mercy of his opponent. The strategy of each, of course, will be to stay the heck away from that wall while trying to push the other guy close enough to the wall to get him snagged, and then to demolish him when he does. Tactics and strategy go hand-in-hand in the same system: the whole idea of positional play is to get the other guy caught in a tactical trap where his demise is forced, no matter what he does, when positional play no longer makes any difference. Tactics is like the icing on the cake that we play for, and that the public loves. You have to be good at both.

----------

(p. 161)

      CHAPTER SIX

Inspiring

Combinations

As stated in the Introduction, combinations are the magical, mystical ele-

ment of chess that makes it such an extraordinary sport, game, art and sci-

ence. Reuben Fine stated, "Combinations have always been the

most intriguing aspect of Chess. The masters look for them, the public ap-

plauds them, the critics praise them. It is because combinations are possi-

ble that Chess is more than a lifeless mathematical exercise. They are the

poetry of the game; they are to Chess what melody is to music. They rep-

resent the triumph of mind over matter." A well-known saying is: "The

combination is the heart of chess." Combinations inspire us to work

harder and learn more, so that we too may one day play a profoundly bril-

liant game. If this work can stir such a spirit in you, I will be well and

truly happy with my effort. The following games will lift the passions of

every chess enthusiast. Can you imagine a game in which you sacrifice not

one, not two, not three but all your pieces? Toss in the promotion of

two pawns as well and you have a game to last!

Seirawan, Yasser. 2006. Winning Chess Combinations. London: Gloucester Publishers plc.

----------

(p. 9)

      - 9 -

   In 1912 Marshall brought off one of the most

startling and unexpected moves ever seen on the

chessboard (vs Lewitsky, at Breslau). The specta-

tors were so electrified by the brilliant coup that

they showered the board with gold pieces!!

Chernev, Irving. 1937. Curious Chess Facts. New York: The Black Knight Press.

Yeah, that's the move where Marshalls Queen was hanging three or four different ways on top of all three of his opponents king side pawns, but couldn't be taken because of an imminent two or three move mate.

Strategy and tactics are so deeply connected that you cant say youre good at strategy when you suck at tactics. Because there are so many tactical motifs needed to pull off all those strategical plans. as more you play and as better you get you will have a better understanding of which tactics come with which plans and so on... For example in IQP positions white always wants to play d5 to get rid of the isolated pawn and so often this can only be achieved by tactics. This is one of million examples, tactics are the essence of chess.

OK, I just looked it up since I'd never seen it. It's called the "Gold Coin Game"!

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1094915

Yes, Qg3 is a quite epic move.

Agreed!