you may not like doing tactic puzzles but do you like exploiting tactics in your games?
If You Don't Like Tactics Do You Simply Not Like Chess?
Sort:
Sep 5, 2017
0
#3
I'm sure you can play a decent game of chess by simply applying what you've already learned. Not every player is looking to improve their game, but instead enjoy playing opponents of similar strength, which can lead to exciting games. If that's not for you and you're over it, don't force yourself to play, but if you're still winning games and still enjoy it, just play for fun. Maybe you could befriend some players that are more positional in nature which sounds to me like the kind of chess you enjoy.
There's no way around calculation and improving calculation if you want to play good chess. But there might be an over emphasis on tactics. Yeah, you want to do some work on them but doing hundreds of puzzles where they feed you game winners might not be the best time spent.
Given that one is pretty solid in general principles, much more relevant in good player versus good player play is going to be pawn structure and especially pawn breaks. While a good tactical sequence might come about once in awhile, every game will probably have at least a couple of pawn structure decision points that could be important.
Though you want to be alert to tactical possibilities, might get more tangible results from being really good with pawn play. As an example, combining the two with a simple forcing pawn fork between an opponents pawn and minor piece, which I'm not sure many puzzles cover, can often be a very effective way of getting some advantage.
I think you can enjoy and love chess either way. One does not always go for rating or becoming professional. Sometimes it is just about loving the game, and having fun playing the game. And I think it's 100% okay. And usually, you learn to love tactics anyway with learning more and more about chess, it comes naturally if one is really invested.
I think of practice, including tactics practice, as a way of programming one's mind to see patterns and learn to act on the patterns. In the beginning, it can be frustrating because our mental map of the board and movement of the pieces is immature. Until the mental map begins to mature, the joy can be limited, but as we start to progress, we find the joy of discovery. It takes faith to accept that it is worth the effort, but only a little IMHO. When we practice with intent, we almost always get better. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with "just playing."
Sep 5, 2017
0
#7
Since you have to use tactics (forks, discovered checks, pins, etc.) to win chess games, I wonder WHY you don't like tactics problems: is it because there may be a lot of work involved to get good a them? I always liked math but when I was a college chemistry major I dreaded calculus, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics classes - until I mastered them.
Personally, after being an active chess player from the 70's to the early 00's, being away for over a decade and then coming back to the wonderful world of Internet chess, it's been tactics problems that have made me a better player - here and at chesstempo - where there are awards for reaching certain achievements. I find the awards help me motivate myself to work at least a few problems every day. Maybe you will, too.
I notice in my games that I am recognizing patterns I didn't see as easily before. There are two great interactive pages of tactics and one of positional motifs (central control, backwards pawn, knight outpost, etc.) that every player should recognize by name and be able to demonstrate if asked:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/chess-tactics--definitions-and-examples
https://chesstempo.com/tactical-motifs.html
https://chesstempo.com/positional-motifs.html
Here's a graph of my tactics rating a chesstempo for 2017: note that I hovered around 1500 for a while, 1600 for a while, 1650 for a while, and now am consistently hovering over 1700, graphic proof I'm getting better at recognizing patterns and/or calculating:
It seems like tactics are the only thing that's really relevant for my level and I don't get any enjoyment out of tactics puzzles. I mean, you get a good position, you blunder, you lose. You get a bad position, you blunder, you lose. You get a good position, you don't blunder... Well you have to actually attack and not blunder sooner or later...
I like all the other aspects of the game more than tactics but under 2000 chess is mostly just tactics and calculation and I never actually enjoy working on that. So it seems like playing isn't really rewarding at least for me. Maybe I'll play every now and then for the nostalgia but otherwise maybe chess is not my game. Thoughts?