Um could you post the source sir... just asking lol wanan read more genuinely
What do you guys think of the Woodpecker Method?

Tactics stop appearing in a vacuum some time around, I don't know, 1300.
Or to say it another way, GMs make tactical errors... but only when their position is under pressure... you can't put someone under pressure by only knowing tactics.

@llama47 , Isn't strategy simply one long, drawn-out tactic theoretically? The positional controlling of diagonals or files, or the centralization of pieces - i.e., thinks typically thought of within the realm of strategy - ultimately are the soil from which tactics grow and thus in a sense tactics themselves?
I know online chess isn't truly representative, but when I play 2000s or 2100s, the norm still seems to be decisive tactical mistakes being the determining factor of games. It really often feels that games at the 1900-2100 level on chess.com are won and lost on "mistakes" and "blunders" rather than 6-move positional compressions. What do you think?

@llama47 , Isn't strategy simply one long, drawn-out tactic theoretically?
My answer is "no"
Maybe people will disagree with that, and maybe the woodpecker thing is great... I sorta made the mistake of commenting here when I'm too tired to talk and about to go to bed. Maybe I'll come back to this topic later, who knows.
It's based off research that up to 40% of even Grandmaster games are won or lost based off decisive tactical errors. Therefore, they say that studying tactics spaced by themes done repetitiously are extremely effective. I have personally benefitted greatly from them and am curious what others think about the method.