That said I still think there is a large place for grinding patterns regardless of how "realistic" they are. Chess.com has the puzzles that are the most "patterny" of any site i've seen, by a mile.
Why don't strong players do puzzles on chess.com?
Sort:
Feb 15, 2024
0
#23
There are a lot of "stockfish" puzzles on chesscom too but. You can get past that by forcing yourself to move if you don't see a pattern.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#24
If I remember correctly, Garry Kasparov wrote in one of his books for beginners : "I solve puzzles, but I like to solve studies even more".
When those strong players were under 2000, they solved a ton of puzzles every day.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#27
Going back to what I said in my previous post, I imagine that studies are much more useful for masters ( and perhaps not only for them ): studies are not only based on tactics, but also on the analysis of position and deeper devilry.
I'll hazard a guess: tactics are the dominant factor in fast play and low-level play, but when the game gets complex it's only part of a chess player's skills. So, at some level, studies should be more important.
If I have said something nonsense, correct me. I am interested in the matter studies & puzzles.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#28
A common mistake is for players to believe that tactics and positional play are separate or to be learned separately.
One can play positional to get positional or to get tactical or both.
One can play tactical to get positional or tactical or both.
A move can be both tactical and positional.
Its true the puzzles tell us in advance there's something tactical in them ... but in regular play its much better to assume there's always tactics somewhere or somehow whether on your move or the opponent's or findable on future moves/variations until you're sure there isn't.
So many many games lost because whoever missed there 'were tactics there'.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#29
TheJobavaSicillian wrote:
B1ZMARK wrote:
Also most of the puzzles above a certain level repeat, and aren’t really applicable to normal games. I mostly use them to warm up calculation before tournaments.
I'm around your puzzle rating, have been up towards 3300 on my other account. I have never had an issue with puzzle repeats after about 2018, and I don't see others having issues until they're much higher rated than I currently am.(I've spent many hours watching strong players do puzzles).
As for them not being applicable to real games, I can see that criticism. Or at least that time spent learning opening theory is more beneficial per time for someone that is already super tactically strong, especially if they're a positional player.
There are plenty of other puzzle sites that do a good job of giving realistic puzzles though. Lichess and chesspuzzles.net for example have databases of 100ks of tactics all drawn from critical moments in real games. But again, that's not something I ever see strong players do on stream, or have heard them talk about ever doing.
I rarely do puzzles anymore but I’d occasionally see a puzzle repeat every once in a while. I don’t really blame them, though, at some point they can’t get any harder or else it would be impossible to do.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#30
playerafar wrote:
A common mistake is for players to believe that tactics and positional play are separate or to be learned separately.
One can play positional to get positional or to get tactical or both.
One can play tactical to get positional or tactical or both.
A move can be both tactical and positional.
Its true the puzzles tell us in advance there's something tactical in them ... but in regular play its much better to assume there's always tactics somewhere or somehow whether on your move or the opponent's or findable on future moves/variations until you're sure there isn't.
So many many games lost because whoever missed there 'were tactics there'.
Then perhaps a core problem with tactics is that they only allow one solution. Most positional situations result in many winning moves.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#31
Hoffmann713 wrote:
Going back to what I said in my previous post, I imagine that studies are much more useful for masters ( and perhaps not only for them ): studies are not only based on tactics, but also on the analysis of position and deeper devilry.
I'll hazard a guess: tactics are the dominant factor in fast play and low-level play, but when the game gets complex it's only part of a chess player's skills. So, at some level, studies should be more important.
If I have said something nonsense, correct me. I am interested in the matter studies & puzzles.
Could you elaborate on what exactly you think is the difference between a puzzle and a study. I often hear strong players talk about a puzzle, "as if it might as well be a study", without directly defining the difference.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#32
I stopped doing puzzles rated.
Which means I stopped using a timer too.
The point of the puzzles has little to do with either.
And the puzzle ratings were essentially destroyed anyway when years ago the site stopped assigning negative points for taking too much time and started awarding too many positive points no matter how much time was taken to get correct.
Which means that players no matter how weak can simply move towards a Magnus Carlsen puzzle rating or higher.
Got to remember its a chess restaurant the site is - not a chess boot camp.
And also that a big percentage of the players are kids.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#33
TheJobavaSicillian ha scritto:
Could you elaborate on what exactly you think is the difference between a puzzle and a study. I often hear strong players talk about a puzzle, "as if it might as well be a study", without directly defining the difference.
In my language (Italian), the distinction is between "Problema" and "studio". Problema is something like: "White checkmates in 3 moves", while "Studio" is like: "White moves and wins". From this point of view, the puzzles would be more studies than problemas, but solving these presented here and others, they all seem to me to be only based on tactics, while the (few) studies that I have seen defined as such seemed to me much more complex, not only based on a precise, short sequence of moves to calculate. That's the difference I seem to have seen.
Again, it's possible that I'm talking nonsense. Enlighten me, I'm interested.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#34
"but when the game gets complex it's only part of a chess player's skills."
Tactics are still at the heart of good play at any level.
In Lasker's Manual ... if memory serves ... he suggested that basics of tactics could be taught in about a fifth the number of hours as opposed to basics of positional play but that the tactics should be taught first.
For obvious reasons. One would be blasted off the board otherwise.
The point about positional play that's so difficult is that its much harder to play with great force in positional.
Which is a must in tournament play if one is to finish high in a tournament ... because too many draws can't do that.
a great player once said that if nobody makes a mistake in a game then it'll finish in a draw.
That could be amended ...
if nobody makes a big enough mistake or the mistake isn't caught then the game ends in a draw.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#35
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.
But players might not accept that.
Especially the second one.
Because that requires some introspection ...
'how and why did I make that mistake?' 'what was I looking at?' 'Why?'
Why/how did I not look at ... ??
I wouldn't be surprised if stats show that most players top out around 1600 USCF strength and then never get much beyond it.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#37
TheJobavaSicillian wrote:
playerafar wrote:
A common mistake is for players to believe that tactics and positional play are separate or to be learned separately.
One can play positional to get positional or to get tactical or both.
One can play tactical to get positional or tactical or both.
A move can be both tactical and positional.
Its true the puzzles tell us in advance there's something tactical in them ... but in regular play its much better to assume there's always tactics somewhere or somehow whether on your move or the opponent's or findable on future moves/variations until you're sure there isn't.
So many many games lost because whoever missed there 'were tactics there'.
Then perhaps a core problem with tactics is that they only allow one solution. Most positional situations result in many winning moves.
Doesn't follow as far as the points I made are concerned.
If one fails to make sure there aren't tactics then extra game failure is going to happen whether there's one winning move or more than one.
An idea of having one winning move is because of an important principle ...
if you're playing 'good' moves instead of also looking for better ones then that's going to produce a lot of extra losing. A well known principle.
Feb 15, 2024
0
#38
Puzzles are much better for learning tactics.
Including because of efficiency and directly getting to the point
Feb 15, 2024
0
#39
playerafar ha scritto:
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 ?
Feb 15, 2024
0
#40
Hoffmann713 wrote:
TheJobavaSicillian ha scritto:
Could you elaborate on what exactly you think is the difference between a puzzle and a study. I often hear strong players talk about a puzzle, "as if it might as well be a study", without directly defining the difference.
In my language (Italian), the distinction is between "Problema" and "studio". Problema is something like: "White checkmates in 3 moves", while "Studio" is like: "White moves and wins". From this point of view, the puzzles would be more studies than problemas, but solving these presented here and others, they all seem to me to be only based on tactics, while the (few) studies that I have seen defined as such seemed to me much more complex, not only based on a precise, short sequence of moves to calculate. That's the difference I seem to have seen.
Again, it's possible that I'm talking nonsense. Enlighten me, I'm interested.
A puzzle doesn't have to specify a particular number of moves.
A study is often something that's composed.
Its a misconception to think that tactics only pertain to tactics and not to positional play.
Or that positional play only pertains to positional play.
Or that a move can't be both positional and tactical.
Does all that seem Obvious??
The point is that players have these misconceptions or they are gradually indoctrinated in.
I've never been a big fan of puzzles as a means of improvement. As I said on the other board, there are plenty of tactics that pop up in openings. If you know the opening you may also then spot it elsewhere. As long as you know the opening, hopefully you will know the tactic. When you do a puzzle on the other hand, you do it and then it's gone forever, so for the long term openings seem like they help more to me.
Another thing is that with a puzzle you always know something is there, and you also know it may be paradoxical or unlikely. There are many puzzles where all the natural continuations fail and some crazy thing that would never normally work does work. In a way this could mean you are training yourself to look for things that never normally occur in real games.
The best most natural way to train tactics I would say is to try to remember the ones you missed in your own games, that's a totally organic way of training for real life situations and a position you entered yourself (another reason why strong players like puzzles less may be because of how people develop different styles, and some puzzles are positions they would never pay into). Obviously if it's a tactic only stockfish would find no point worrying about it, the typical ones that totally come up are what you want.
The thread seems to be zeroing in on this conclusion to my eyes. Sites that pull puzzles only directly from actual games should be prioritized. You could go even further and say, pull only puzzles from actual games, where the solution was actually played. This would eliminate a lot of your concerns. I haven't seen anything like this, but it would be trivial to adapt say lichess' algorithm to do this.