Tactics Issues/Calculation

Hello.

I have lately been very frustrated at my inability to calculate simple variations in chess positions. I am a younger player (16 years old) with a U.S.C.F. rating of 1590. I know there is a perception that younger players are supposed to be attacking, aggressive players who can out-calculate older opponents, and that the older players are better at positional chess and endgames. But that's not the case with me at all. While I've never been that good at endgames, I am much better at positional chess than tactical chess. And I am very concerned by this because my goal is to become a national master (2200) and it seems that all the great players in the world started out as attackers and tacticians. Carlsen, Caruana, Kasparov, even positional players like Capablanca, all started out as attacking players when they were young and then took up positional chess.

Most of my friends who play scholastic chess are better at tactics than I am and I get the feeling that if I don't develop my tactical vision now while I'm young, I may never do it. But my tactics trainer performance hasn't improved at all in months, and I am simply not good at calculating. I think maybe I have learned to master the skills of chess in the wrong order, because as I said above, great players all seem to have learned tactics first.

Is there anyone out there who has a similar problem? I have had problems with calculation and visualization for a long time now and as a junior player, I think this is unusual. What should I do to improve my tactics? I spend a lot of time on tactics trainer and I make no progress. Is it that my goal of NM is unreasonable?

I can't even stay above 1700 tactics...

I don't think your goal to be a NM is unreasonable. One question I would ask on your statement of "I spend a lot of time on tactics trainer" is do you just do a lot of tactics or do you try and understand the ones you don't get completely right?

I know most of my tactics training is just doing tactics, trying them a couple of times, and showing the solution when I get them wrong. While that can help some with recognition, it doesn't help a whole lot with trying to find weaknesses in thought processes or places where I am missing ideas/patterns.

I have a particular weakness in seeing temporary rook sacrifices where I can gain two pieces for the rook (and sometimes a pawn too). I know trading two pieces for a rook and pawn is generally bad and I believe that colors my thought process when I have combinations on the board that will allow that material trade when it good for me. I'm still working on fixing that problem but I have at least identified it.

Keep track of all your missed tactics, both in TT and games (OTB and online). Do you see common themes that you miss, common patterns, etc?  Spending additional time on identifying your tactical weaknesses, will help a lot in trying to fix the problem.

Hi there, I am also a young player rated 1567 USCF and my goal is to become a Natinal Master also. So what if your friends are better at Tactical chess. You are better at Positional Chess. I personall think being better at positional chess is much better than being good at tactical chess because of the fact that tactics won't come in every position. Although, does it really matter which one we are better at? In the end, its all based on calculations. I am also a positional chess player, but it doesnt really matter because throughout recent games I noticed that tactics rely hevaily on calculation. The way one reaches a position is solely based on calculations. The best way to improve calculations is obviously tactics and just starring at the board figuring out what are the best candidate moves to play and the possible variations each move has. The higher rated players are higher rated players because they have the ability to calculate which candidate best. 

Best of luck,

~Happy

Thanks.

There are at least two very different parts to "tactical ability". One is recognizing patterns, the other is calculating/visualizing moves. You train them differently, and they serve different purposes. Patterns help you spot possible tactics and sense opportunity and danger. Dan Heisman recommends doing a lot of easy tactical problems very quickly - even going over the same problems again - to sharpen your tactical recognition. I would say speed chess is also helpful for pattern recognition. Accurate calculation/visualization is quite different. Practice in slow games obviously should help with it, but for more targeted training try going without a board through games in chess books that have several diagrams per game, so that you have to visualize the positions between diagrams. Also, books that focus on analysis are good guidance. Many years ago, I went through Nunn's Secrets of Grandmaster Play, which was very challenging for a 1700-1800 player, but I felt it really helped my analytical skills. (Then again, my rating didn't increase, so take all this with a grain of salt.)

All I can do is confirm the above opinions. I went through the same realization as Seirawan: until recently I was bored by Kasparov's games, I thought he was mostly a positional player, then I came across a 15-move tactical winning line he played that blew me away. That's when I realized that you don't get to world class levels without very strong tactical ability. Those quiet positional players whose dull games you read are like alligators, lazing quietly in the sun, moving deceptively slowly until they see an opportunity, then they're on it like a flash. They can even outrun a deer! That's when I realized I need to play like an alligator.

----------

(p. 8)

   When reflecting on my style, I most often considered myself to be a
positional player. I like the boa-constrictor method of gaining a central
advantage, limiting the mobility of my opponent and plucking pawns and
misplaced pieces. An early hero of mine was the great player Tigran Pet-
rosian, who was renowned for his careful, steady play. What surprised me
was when, analyzing his games, I discovered not a dry strategist but rather
a fellow who was a gifted tactician. How was this possible? Such a quiet
player happily concocting strategic masterpieces could outplay the best of
(p. 9)
in tactics. In fact, Petrosian became a chess legend for sacrificing the
Exchange. I began to rethink. Perhaps I wasn't so positionally mono-
dimensional either. I began to look at my own play in a new light and dis-
covered that I loved to attack. I was happy to sacrifice an Exchange or
more if my remaining forces dominated the position. My appreciation for
being ahead in material actually makes me qualified to write about combi-
national play. My search has been for sound attacking ideas.

(p. 14)
   The above thinking was a lucky happenstance for me. I was right. The
memorization alone would be too much. The effort too great, I would in-
evitably fail. I needed help. I had to make a short cut, and many as well. I
would have to try to classify the most common combinations as best I
could. Then I would not have to memorize all the possible combinations;
rather I would just have to master the basic patterns and look for the tell-
tale signposts. Breaking down combinations into groups and learning their
basic patterns meant that suddenly the workload didn't seem overwhelm-
ing after all. In fact, it seemed straightforward and fun as well. I would
just learn a slew of patterns, mix them up to suit the needs of a given posi-
tion an make the combination work for the specifics of each position!
Presto. Instant chess mastery. In the meantime, I continued to lose most of
my games.

Seirawan, Yasser. 2006. Winning Chess Combinations. London: Gloucester Publishers plc.