Tactics and ranking
Sort:
For people training a lot of tactics and less openings or endgames: do you see a strong correlation between your raking in tactics and in your raking in the game? I would expect a clear "yes", but are people here perhaps with a raking 1900 in tactics and only with a raking of 1500 or 1600?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
I would expect a clear no.You can solve the most difficult tactic in tactics training and miss the most easy tactic in a game.In the game , noone tells you "white to play and win".
Absolutely.
Knowing a tactic is in a position is a lot different than seeing that in a game situation. Sometimes you will recognize a tactical theme is present, or almost present, and can use that to assist calculation. I've certainly found tactics in game due to my tactical training and I like to think that training does help in games, most of the time.
But my TT rating way outpaces anything but my Daily rating.
Martin, you had a huge jump in tactics in the last 30 days. Is just because you trained a lot in the last time or did you somehow improve your approach to tactics? In the exercises I am not sure if I should go for a vary fast pattern recognition (more or less guessing how to play based on a very vague idea) or to spend a lot of time until I am pretty sure how to play.
I'm a bit streaky and don't do them as much as I should but I'm within 100 points of my historical averages, before the TT changes in April/May (where I peaked in the 2300's 
)
Deirdre, probably the people strong in tactics in exercises should change something about the use of tactics in a game. I mean, if I would be good in tactics I would probably try to complicate things, sometimes sacrifice material based on tactical ideas that I know. But I know this probably in my game. I was once surprised that I found a move which led to mate in two (a rook sacrifice to close a diagonal for the defence). But sometimes I try to be smart and sacrifice a rook or a bishop for absolute rubbish idea. I am just not good in visualisation. I can see this also in my daily life, I have huge problems to orientate myself, even in cities which I am living since decades. For this reason, instead of calculation precisely I try to guess things, sometimes with good results, often not.
I don't. You can gain points by simply taking your time and solving tactics.. but it's not the same way in the actual game.
Thanks Deidre, your argument about three moves and endgames make sense. In fact I am doing something with endgames, one with basic stuff, the other more complex ("100 Endgames You Must Know"). I had already a game where I could use my knowledge on K, N and B versus K, and was amazed that I was able to recall the variations.
Several chess authors emphasis the the thing with few moves but clear evaluation (mini operations). I will focus more on this idea.
Several chess authors emphasis the the thing with few moves but clear evaluation (mini operations). I will focus more on this idea.
aravinds_ll wrote:
I don't. You can gain points by simply taking your time and solving tactics.. but it's not the same way in the actual game.
I think that is an important part of the answer to his question. I have found that the shorter the game, the wider the gap between tactics ability and game rating. In very long time controls I think the ratings get closer because there is simply more time to find the answers.
Yeah. I once asked an IM how solving tactics helps in the actual game. He told me it's not really solving the tactics and playing them when the position arises in the game, but it's actually about striving to reach that position first. He said it was a skill that ought to be perfected..