Forums

tactics and improvement

Sort:
robertjames_perez

There are 12-24 tactics known. 

AnnChess2

It's useful to solve some tactics but if you do it too much then you would make stupid sacs in real games. Tactics is not the same like playing normal game with long time control or analysing with an engine or a coach. 

IpswichMatt

@vicosmin - thanks

JustWimpy

I feel the tactics are a great help.  Not only with positioning, but with looking over the entire board with each move.  I've discovered since joining that my biggest problem is focusing too much on pieces that are currently being attacked.  I had a bad habit of trying to save whatever piece.  I'm assuming this is a problem for a lot of beginners. The tactics trainer has been huge in teaching me to stop ignoring what else is going on.  There is almost always a better move than the first one you see.  

Rogue_King

Tactics are the backbone of chess. Maybe you can do okay without a backbone for awhile, but eventually if your fundamentals are bad you will find it impossible to improve. 

lofina_eidel_ismail

@ NM yyoochess

thx for tips posted on #11

VimalKumarK
DrFrankensteinn wrote:
I only get too do few tactics on this app so I'm thinking of upgrading

If you thinking of upgrading for the sake of doing tactics, then I would recommend against it. There are many websites offering free tactic training.

yureesystem

If you are weak in tactics your whole game is bad, what profit is it to get great position and lose because of poor tactics abilities.

urk
Am I alone here?
I am not going to advise novices that constant tactical practice is necessary because it's just not true.
CookedQueen
Rogue_King wrote:

Tactics are the backbone of chess. Maybe you can do okay without a backbone for awhile, but eventually if your fundamentals are bad you will find it impossible to improve. 

By far the best answer on this thread. All other sayings here what is true and what not are neither helpful nor ontopic.

urk
Tactics are not the backbone of chess. Tactics are only necessary details.
CookedQueen
urk wrote:
Tactics are not the backbone of chess. Tactics are only necessary details.

Without necessary details your backbone is like butter. Sorry but this applies to almost everything in life and u are trying to negate this

urk
Thank you, Murakami!
urk
I don't see tactics as the backbone at all. Tactics define what is possible and not possible for many moves but they shape the actual battle to varying extents. Sometimes not much.

Spending 1,000 hours in tactics trainer is not the best use of your time. Anybody who says that is lying to you.
yureesystem

Tactical study is a must for any player regardless of strength but to improve to the next rating level requires better tactics to beat your peers and go higher. If player desires to go to 1400 and he is at 1200 , tactics alone will get him there, not opening or strategy.

Chesslover0_0
DrFrankensteinn wrote:
Do you higher level chess players think doing tactics everyday for a hour or so will drastically improve your game ? Or does it not really improve with tactics but from experience of games. I would say decent chess player but I wanna become a 2000 player and that takes time and practice so can someone give me on advice on improving.

I know I'm late here but allow me to offer my two cents as tired as I am. sad.png .  ( I think 2 1/2 hours of sleep qualifies for being tired,well at least it's a Saturday right?) 

Any way I think studying tactics for an hour a day (if you can spare it,most books say 15 minutes a day or 10 problems or so a day over a period of time would reap benefits,I do my tactics throughout the day,so I don't exactly clock how much time I spend each day doing them,it probably varies).  would definitely help.  I personally believe you learn more from studying Chess then you do from playing,one thing that playing can teach you that studying can't is the pressure of being in a game under time controls and studying really can't tell you how to handle a painful loss and I won't even mention winning because nobody ever suffered a win.  

Again,as is already known the goal is pattern recognition and the hope is to see these "patterns" in your own games. 

Chesslover0_0
AnnChess2 wrote:

It's useful to solve some tactics but if you do it too much then you would make stupid sacs in real games. Tactics is not the same like playing normal game with long time control or analysing with an engine or a coach. 

I don't think you can ever do "too many" tactics,now I will say that doing tactics you already know over and over may not yield you any profits but if by "too many" you mean too many tactics in general,I don't think there is such a thing.  

Solving many tactics from different angles,squares etc. helps you gain board vision.  I remember when I first started with tactics in one of Susan Polgar's books,I was used to those tactics,when I went to another book,even though it was the same forks,pins etc.,I was missing alot of them because I hadn't seen it done that.  The lesson there I think is that a wide variety of different tactical definitely would help then just a few choice tactics.  

Also a stupid sac? No such thing? If you sac a piece there should be a reason that you did it right? Even if it was just to open up a line or something like that.  



I do agree with the last thing you said about tactics not being the same as playing a long game,tactics is merely one of many building blocks to having a strong game.  

Chesslover0_0
Rogue_King wrote:

Tactics are the backbone of chess. Maybe you can do okay without a backbone for awhile, but eventually if your fundamentals are bad you will find it impossible to improve. 

I totally agree with this,but I would say even if your fundamentals are good,even if you're good at positional Chess and even if you're an expert at Chess strategy,if you don't know tactics those things won't really matter because you'll be dropping pieces not unlike a kid playing hot potato. sad.png 

kongfooyee2020
blueemu wrote:

One useful question to ask yourself when looking at a tactics problem is "What could I do IF...".

... if that defending piece was distracted.

... if I had one more piece in the action.

... if that line was open.

... etc.


Chesslover0_0
Evolvedtoo wrote:
yureesystem wrote:

If you are weak in tactics your whole game is bad, what profit is it to get great position and lose because of poor tactics abilities.

one doesn't get good positions without tactics