Value of Tactics
Sort:
Yes
Arctor wrote:
Yes
A really good idea is 500 Master Games of Chess where all the games are arranged by opening. Read through the games in your openings and you'll have a good idea of what to do in the opening and middlegame.
[COMMENT DELETED]
ChopSuey18 wrote:
Whenever the topic of tactics i always think of this quote: "Tactics are what you do when there is something to do. Strategy is what you do when there is nothing to do" - Fischer. I don't agree with saying that tactics 'flow from sound positions'. What you are thinking of is strategy. Strategy doesn't come from puzzles. It is alot harder to 'master'.
"Tactics flow from a superior position." Bobby Fischer
Tactics is the extension of strategy by violent means
Dec 14, 2011
0
#8
paulgottlieb wrote:
Obviously tactics are critical at every level, but there are two good arguments why an improving player shouldn't concentrate only on tactics.
1. It's incredibly boring! Just doing tactical exercises all day long is just tedious. A few years ago Michael De la Maza published "Rapid Chess Improvement" where he described how he raised his rating from a beginner's USCF rating of 1164 to 2041 (Expert!) in just two years. His rapid improvement program consisted of doing the same sets of tactical exercises over and over until you could do them rapidly and perfectly. His book also got him a set of disciples, many of whom set up web sites where they described their progress. De la Maza himself seems to have quit chess shortly after reaching an experts rating and hasn't played a rated game since 2001. I've noticed that many of his followers, who dubbed themselves the "Knights Errant," have allowed their web sites to go dark as they have become discouraged and given up. And I can understand it. Studying nothing but tactics is a dry joyless approach to chess that must inevitably lead to ennui and disinterest. There must be more to the game than hoping your opponent will overlook a skewer or fork!
2. If you don't learn some positional ideas and endgame technique, you are simply going to lose when you start playing better players. And I think it's a mistake to think that you can ignore strategy and develop a style based around tactical tricks and then go back and add positional feel later.
I have done over 15000 tactical puzzles on the CT site during last 2-3 years. But my OTB rating is still well below 1500, and my Live rating here and on ICC is around 1500.
So I also think that just doing lot of tactical puzzles, is not the silver bullet.
But when studying my games I find lot of tactical errors by me and my opponent. If I had not done these errors, my rating would be (much) higher.
So how much tactical puzzles should you do, and how much of other subjects like strategy, end games, study game collection?
I don't know. I try to follow advices given by Dan Heisman, and I hope by following these, my chess strength will raise eventually.
Dec 14, 2011
0
#9
Arctor wrote:
ChopSuey18 wrote:
Whenever the topic of tactics i always think of this quote: "Tactics are what you do when there is something to do. Strategy is what you do when there is nothing to do" - Fischer. I don't agree with saying that tactics 'flow from sound positions'. What you are thinking of is strategy. Strategy doesn't come from puzzles. It is alot harder to 'master'.
"Tactics flow from a superior position." Bobby Fischer
Thank you, Arctor. The quote from Fischer is the one I was referring to.
JFK, there is a book Rapid Chess Improvement which outlines a study plan where the author improved dramatically by studying tactics. I have the book and can loan it to you. it is very short, and the gist is very simple, study tactics buy ct-art study tactics using ct-art.
I would not call Rapid Chess Improvement a chess book, I would rather call it a study plan.
found Polgar's Chess Problems, Combinations and Games in hardcover at a used bookstore on Monday
5,334 tactical problems and only 5,150 or so to go now. First 300 or so problems are mate in 1, then mate in two and mate in 3.
I am going to study about 90% tactics if I get better my rating should improve. If nothing else my endgame should improve.
Feb 29, 2012
0
#12
Personally I find reading Archie comic books to be more rewarding than studying those dry, boring tactics books.
JFK-Ramsey wrote:
I've raised this issue in another thread but thought I would start one just on this topic. I've heard it stressed by many sources I respect, that once a player has some basic opening, middlegame and ending fundamentals down, they should concentrate on tactics til their rating reaches a higher level (whatever that might be).
I agree that tactics are very, very important but I've also heard that tactics flow from sound postions. If I can't get to a positionally sound middlegame, won't I be at a disadvantage with a player who knows their openings?
Food for thought?
Ask yourself these questions...
What are you going to do when there are no tactics?
Why would you only study half of chess?
There are 2 sayings
chess is 99% tactics
And the really important one...
Chess is 100% calculation.
Becoming a good player is a long journey. I belive there is nothing wrong in using a couple years to do only tactics. And I don't think training only tactics means automatically you are going to burn up. Only you know your tolerance and motivation, study accordingly.
I don't agree with the statement "Chess is 100% calculation." Computers calculate, humans ponder, go through variations, sink in new information and analyse risk and reward but I don't think they ever truly calculate anything.
Mar 1, 2012
0
#15
You are probably correct, it seems most Fischer quotes have to contain obscenities and references to Jews.
I heard a GM say once that you should never calculate, as when you calculate you are always wrong. He was joking of course, but strategy is important too.
I've raised this issue in another thread but thought I would start one just on this topic. I've heard it stressed by many sources I respect, that once a player has some basic opening, middlegame and ending fundamentals down, they should concentrate on tactics til their rating reaches a higher level (whatever that might be).
I agree that tactics are very, very important but I've also heard that tactics flow from sound postions. If I can't get to a positionally sound middlegame, won't I be at a disadvantage with a player who knows their openings?
Food for thought?