I'm convinced now - studying too many tactics makes me worse

Trust me - as I said, if I study tactics at the exclusion of everything else, I become markedly worse in play. 

Of course, if I or anyone else has the time to study properly, covering a more balanced approach with attention to personal weaknesses, adding tactics ON TOP of that will only help.

But if you're only looking out for winning tactics, which is what happens to my train of thought when I'm studying tactics at the cost of all else, it becomes very, very hard to notice the smaller but significant advantages that you really have to accumulate to get a winning tactic against a nonblundering opponent. When I'm in this 'blind to all but tactics' mode, everyone seems unbeatable, since I cannot win anything on 95% of the moves (that don't have winning/losing tactics), whereas when I'm studying full games and reinforcing those thinking processes that focus on smaller advantages while keeping an eye for tactics, those same players seem remarkably easy to beat - to the point that I can miss the main winning tactic outright and still have multiple chances. 

I don't think it's true at all that when I'm solving tactics, that I'm 'not understanding the answer.' Most of the tactics I solve are done on the computer, and I take the time to play out all possible sidelines that I find plausible defenses/offenses, so with the CPU aid, I definitely understand the reasons the tactics work or don't after learning the problem. (I put it in a Fritz database.) In the 1001 Tactics from Reinfeld, the CPU often points out resources that Reinfeld's answers overlook completely, and I learn those too. 

if you are studying tactics and your play is getting worse, you are d-o-i-n-g i-t w-r-o-n-g.

Actually, I must (respectfully) disagree with you on this.

 When I studied hundreds of problems per day, my tactics got very, very good. When I started doing only a few, I got very bad at tactics (Down to about 1400 USCF level tactics). 

 Also, you should not quit as soon as it gets hard. Our brains learn more when we are doing difficult things outside of our comfort zone. It's just like any muscle; You excercise it until it burns, and then some, which makes it stronger.

Studying tactics at the exclusion of everything , is what's going wrong, and my rating results reflect it!

Ok maybe you are just not "learning". if you study tactics to the exclusion of everything for a year, you don't improve. then you study endgames for a year and don't improve. then you study strategy for a year. then openings for a year. 4 years later, your rating hasn't improved because you learned nothing.

Oh, you're learning, for sure. It's just that in chess, learning a TON about one specific thing won't translate to wins if the other factors are excluded. Chess heavily punishes skill imbalances - spend too much time on the opening at the exclusion of all else, and you'll get punished in the middlegame/endgame. Spend too much too much time similarly in tactics at the exclusion of all else, and you'll get punished on every other nontactical phase of the game.

I still definitely 'learned' a lot of tactics when I did a ton of tactical problems, despite the lack of ratings increase. It was pretty obvious that my tactics rating on various websites as well as my tactics speed was improving. Unfortunately, it's very true that missing tactics wasn't the main problem why I am/was losing games, and thus it's very hard to up your rating when that's the case. Note that I'm not saying I was perfect in tactics - clearly I'm not, but for sure, it's much, much easier to go wrong and miss tactics when your opponent has your back to the wall with a bind so that there is only like 1-2 non-losing moves, as opposed to a good playable position where even if you miss the 'killer' tactic, you still have a good game.

I continue to be amazed with how 1500 rated players go from seemingly tactical superstuds with no tactical misses in positions they clearly are comfortable in and have no big positional pressure on their position, to blunderfest players once you get all small advantage (<1 pawn) in a position they're not so comfortable in. 

hhnngg1 I saw your other post about the problems you are having doing the tactics problems, so I thought I'd just respond here.

If you are doing "easy" level tactics and only getting them 80% correct.

Then you need to continue practicing until you get them to 100%.

You can do this by one of two ways:

A) Lower the upper ratings limit on the problem set until your accuracy hits 100%. Then once this is achieved raise the upper limit by 50 points and start doing it again.

B) Slow down and don't move until you see the entire variation. Do not guess, hit the move and hope it is correct. Know that it is correct. There is a BIG difference in pattern recognition and being able to calculate and visualize pieces moving, making captures, etc. Pattern recognition is a reflex.

Look at the tactics ratings of the higher ranked players (of those that have them) on this site. None of them are weak tactically.

Not being able to recognize an easy tactical shot would be the equivalent of basketball player unable to dribble the ball or a golfer unable to sink a two foot putt. These are basic fundamentals. Drill them until you can't get them wrong. Start with mating patterns and work your way up.

The link nimzobogo posted in comment #14 is related to a great piece of software called "Tasc Chess CD 2". If you really want to learn/relearn how to approach tactics properly I'd say start here. This breaks everything down into the most basic elements/building blocks of tactical study.

You are on the right path realizing that "Tactical" study is only one piece of the puzzle. So continue with your study of master games. Review games of the openings you play when possible. And most importantly review your own games. Use an engine to do your review if you can't find a stronger player to analyze with. Watch the assessment closely and look for any fluctuations.

Good luck man!

I actually did do that. As said, I started out at 75-85%, then repeated the sets until I was 100%. I've always been a big proponent of repeating incorrect tactics - it's far more valuable than just feeling good by getting tactics right.

Tactics are important, but unfortunately, I think people give it wayyyy too much weight at my level, which is near the bulk of chess players here. Solving a ton more tactics will only make us marginally better.

I also think that it's a mistake to do a chess problem set where on your very first try, you get 80% or more of the problems correct. After having done that myself, I'd say that the set is definitely too easy and you should pick a harder set so you're not just spinning your wheels on stuff you already know.

Again, I've done a LOT of tactics in the past. I'm not a newbie to tactics, and have probably used more tactics programs than many folks here. I'm just being dead honest about how little it has improved my rating despite beating my head against thousands of tactical problems over and over again. There is no issue with me 'not understanding' the tactics, and I play out all refutations that I can think of against Stockfish if I need to prove to myself the win is there.

I've only just started to take chess seriously by studying. I made it to 1500 standard by experience alone. I'm able to solve tactical puzzles from "experience".

Out of all the books I've got, the Tactics book by Winning Chess series was a waste of money. I already knew all of this.

What is improving my play are endgames and how to evaluate a position and just what exactly is your plan? I see all these players going tactics,tactics, tactics will improve your play. In my eyes, NO. Experience solves tactics. The question is, how well can you evaluate a position? What are the imbalances? What's your plan?

A caveman kingside attack only takes you so far. In the words of nimzowitsch, " A master is royaly content at the hint of a pawn weakness."

I feel like I've encountered similar issues in my play. The quality of my games have been compromised by a dangerous combination of mundane tactics fanaticism and obsessive blitz play. I plan on toning down the quantity of tactics and siphoning such resources on emphasizing my positional play and long term strategy.

Just finished ~3 hour solving tactics on TT 2100-2200 range. Then played 5/5 blitz game vs Class B 1700 rated OTB USCF rated player and here what happened - Almost perfect game with excellent tactical combination at the end. Once again, everything is tactic at this level. I dont even know well this opening, haven't studied it , or have much experience.

Tactic training is always a good thing so i don't now what you are talking about OP

I'm puzzles 1900 and can't break 300 in blitz, so I feel you here.  The skills don't transfer.  At all, in any way.

Although a major problem for me may be terrible eyesight - I have amblyopia and lose many games to pieces literally vanishing from the chessboard for me - the usual offender are bishops on the back rank that haven't been moved so they're "not there" - or diagonals "connecting" wrong (looking like they are connected to the next over same color, etc).....   (I've tried to learn to "see" the entire board in my head, but that's hopeless too =.)

I have definitely felt that the more tactics I do, the worse my game gets though.   I'm always trying to treat the board like a puzzle and either run the clock down or just end up stumped on what I should be doing when nothing sexy is available....

OP hard to take you seriously when you have attempted exactly 0 puzzles here:

i've reached 3600 on puzzles & i've found them extremely beneficial to my chess game overall.

People with time to really study chess - basically an amusing but otherwise overrated game - don’t have much else worthwhile going on in their lives.

alguien pude jugar, no se jugar bien aun

I have no plan  to start doing tactics again. But my case is different. I know all the common tactical pattern. Even though if you play long time control it is possible to find those tactics during the game(you feel more accomplished if you did)  or after the game

I wrote about this since i had the same problem as the OP.

https://www.chess.com/blog/foobarred1/part-iv-hitting-the-chess-gym-with-tactical-training

this is a fairly common problem i dont see people acknowledge. When you begin a heavy tactical puzzle  regimen, you begin over-compensating in your games, because you are trying to see the fruits of your labor, but this usually takes weeks or even months to fully manifest. Instead you begin focusing in moments where there is nothing to focus, or you get a false confidence in certain positions 

it happens to me even at my level.  You have to learn to power through and make it an exercise in not trying too hard to force results before they are due. The mind takes time to organically acclimate to a careful rigorous regimen.