Ofcourse it's going to help you, it's pattern recognition. Maybe you'll completely find a skewer, a pin, a fork or a mate in three or a stalemate on your own. Chances are slim though.
Tactics trainer shows you tactics, that simple, and once you are familiar with them, you look out for them and recognize them while playing.
Besides all that, it's fun and gives a feeling of satisfaction
I agree with Vivinski. Very helpful for pattern recognition, and the more patterns you are exposed to with the trainer, the better you will be prepared when playing a game.
Doesn't sound logical guys. IF it's this easy to become a grandmaster,then wouldn't everyone be a grandmaster already? And wouldn't Carlsen or Naka be defeated by other well-trained masters , masters who solved 150,000+ puzzles like Blitzmaniac on Chess Tactics Server? If he has solved over 150k shouldn't he be super GM?
Nobody is claiming solving a few tactics puzzle is a direct route to becoming a GM. There's a big difference between necessary ingredient and only ingredient.
Nobody ever said that just training tactics will make you a grandmaster
Not so simple!
Is the ''combnination'' of tactics + ''strategy'' that wins games.
(Most GM's are excellent tacticians)
Yes, tactics training is a scam, all coaches participate in this conspiracy in order to keep mugs working hard, giving them money and never getting anywhere.
They would have gotten away with it to, if it wasn't for you and your meddling logic.
Good job. :D
Well, the only ingredient to becoming good at chess is tactics, theory imposed by higher rated players, and they also claimed it's the only necessary ingredient in attaining chess mastery. The reason why I came up with this thread is when I found out that naka had already reached 2100 by the age of 8. I'm quite doubtful that he spent hours day by day on tactics to get that good. So I'm a bit confused. I feel like I've been misled into thinking that I could actually achieve the same level of playing strength. And I think people tell me it does, are just playing the game of life, maybe to imprison me to chess, keeping me hopeful that one day I would get to master leagues. I don't know, what you guys say make sense, but overnight, I come to refutation with doubts.
I've never heard that theory. Are you sure you didn't accidentally invent it?
Well, the only ingredient to becoming good at chess is tactics, theory imposed by higher rated players, and they also claimed it's the only necessary ingredient in attaining chess mastery. The reason why I came up with this thread is when I found out that naka had already reached 2100 by the age of 8. I'm quite doubtful that he spent hours day by day on tactics to get that good. So I'm a bit confused. I feel like I've been misled into thinking that I could actually achieve the same level of playing strength. And I think people tells me it does, are just playing the game of life, maybe to imprison me to chess, keeping me hopeful that one day I would get to master leagues. I don't know, what you guys say make sense, but overnight, I come to refutation with doubts.
I am inclined to agree with you to some degree. I think tactics trainer is just an indication of where you're ability is at in that given moment. It's akin to a chess IQ. You either see it or you don't depending on the difficulty which is why I beleive also chess.com tactics trainer is too quick. I am a slow thinker but a good problem solver with time so I prefer other sites that offer puzzles to solve without timing.
It doesn't matter very much if you play a lot of serious games or if you solve tactics. It could be that certain strong players used the more natural or intuitive method. That being said, practice is practice. It's only reasonable puzzles will improve your tactical ability.
I have gotten better on chesstempo... better at solving chesstempo puzzles, that is. It was funny, my rating there was kind of stagnant for a while then suddenly jumped up 150 points and has stayed there. I didn't notice a corresponding sudden improvement playing chess games, however. Maybe that's because of the blitz time control which doesn't give me enough chance to make use of my improved tactical calculation...
By the way I think I already made this post in this thread but now I don't see it. Did someone delete it?
Yes Chesstempo is better for me too.
Yes, tactics training is a scam, all coaches participate in this conspiracy in order to keep mugs working hard, giving them money and never getting anywhere.
They would have gotten away with it to, if it wasn't for you and your meddling logic.
Good job. :D
haha yes,
I'm a bit of a skeptic when people tell me they can improve by solving tactic puzzles. Even though so many people believe it could... i'm just never convinced by it. Did Fischer improved by solving tacics? Did Carlsen? There are no written documentation anywhere that stated they became good from solving puzzles. I know most professionals will say they did a little of both and playing through GM games... but really, what if it's just an innate ability that wasn't honed by solving puzzles?
Try looking up "pattern recognition."
Well, the only ingredient to becoming good at chess is tactics, theory imposed by higher rated players, and they also claimed it's the only necessary ingredient in attaining chess mastery. The reason why I came up with this thread is when I found out that naka had already reached 2100 by the age of 8. I'm quite doubtful that he spent hours day by day on tactics to get that good. So I'm a bit confused. I feel like I've been misled into thinking that I could actually achieve the same level of playing strength. And I think people tell me it does, are just playing the game of life, maybe to imprison me to chess, keeping me hopeful that one day I would get to master leagues. I don't know, what you guys say make sense, but overnight, I come to refutation with doubts.
If for "naka" you mean Nakamura, then maybe you should try to get your facts straight. Nakamura's father (not biological) was a FM and likely one of the best coach in the world. He really explains chess in a wonderful way. So in order to know what Nakamura did to become good, you should ask directly to Weeramantry. Unfortunately chess is also a secretive field, since it is quite competitive, and often big champions still pay Kasparov for his famous opening database. The conversation is long, but in general like in a war, nobody reveals the "secrets" for free. So yes coaches, especially some famous names, are like snake-oil salesmen, since one cannot see real high level players created by them, while they surely milk the cows.
On the other hand, yes, your beginning statement that tactics don't really help, could be correct, because there are not serious studies which prove the validity of studying tactics, compared to something else.
I hope I'm clear, but I make an example. There is not a study which shows how a group of players studying only tactics for 100 hours, is superior to another group of players who is studying only endgames, or another group who is just playing blitz games. Such study would show which system would improve the player the faster. But there is no such amount of money for scientific studies in chess, so everyone can have an opinion. And of course many have financial interests to make you believe something works better than something else.
Even if it won't make you a master, the least it can do is redeeming you from the 1500 level games you are playing now and you can enjoy the chessboard a bit more with eyes less clouded for the rest of your lifetime.
I'm a bit of a skeptic when people tell me they can improve by solving tactic puzzles. Even though so many people believe it could... i'm just never convinced by it. Did Fischer improved by solving tacics? Did Carlsen? There are no written documentation anywhere that stated they became good from solving puzzles. I know most professionals will say they did a little of both and playing through GM games... but really, what if it's just an innate ability that wasn't honed by solving puzzles?