Ok, clear. Thanks.
Why don't strong players do puzzles on chess.com?
Sort:
Feb 15, 2024
0
#43
Hoffmann713 wrote:
Ok, clear. Thanks.
In my early days on the puzzles - I wanted to find ways to be more efficient.
And yes - I wanted to improve my Tactics rating whether mistakenly or not.
I devised methods to be more efficient but without 'skipping' anything.
For example - try looking at the two kings first and their situations.
Or - if you're stumped ... try that basic.
They're always both there. They're the most important pieces.
If progress isn't happening intuitively or just not happening ... then try method.
The queen situations are next. Vulnerability and offensive potential.
The queens for both side.
And then so on down to the pawns.
This helps to identify what's going on and account for all the material on the board.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#44
TheJobavaSicillian wrote:
They don't need it to be a very strong player obviously, they already are strong players. As for the puzzles becoming too easy, this is simply untrue. I have watched top GM's like Hikaru struggle to make it up towards 3800 ish. And for everyone who isn't Hikaru I assume that's only more true. I would also expect to see many GM accounts sitting around the 4200 level if that was true. That's about the rating where the puzzles stop getting harder.
It stops at 4000.
Master-level players have already reached the point of diminishing returns, when it comes to solving puzzles. They know how to calculate well enough. Doing additional puzzles isn't going to help them improve by much.
They get more out of playing and analyzing, at that point.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#46
As to how different titled players such as masters and GM's prepare and condition and train themselves for high-level chess I imagine there are tremendous variations in their routines.
From player to player - from month to month and so on.
Regarding tactics - openings - endgames and various kinds of week to week preparation for tournament play ... I also imagine they don't all tell everybody exactly what they're doing.
Regarding 'no longer need' ... isn't it clear that top-level players know better than lesser players 'what to look for and to look at' in positions?
I think you'd find they choose their initial calculations better than lesser players.
Somewhere between observations and calculations ... forming candidate moves to compare.
Feb 16, 2024
0
#47
Wow! Before my comment, practically no one had posted anything.
Does improvement include not only studying mistakes but also why one made them?
Or why other players make them?
I would say yes to both.
Okay, what you say certainly sounds right.
My question: technically, is it correct to say that efficiency in solving a position in a puzzle consists essentially in the precise calculation of moves ( tactics ), but it doesn't require strategic skills such as position analysis and more general evaluations that are essential in solving studies ?
'Calculation' and 'Observation' are different.
Observation pertains to 'what's going on in the position'.
Calculation is the preparation and comparison of precise sequences of moves.
See the difference?
Failure to appreciate the difference will result in gross inefficiency.