Why don't strong players do puzzles on chess.com?

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.

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.

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.

https://www.chess.com/club/the-meme-hoie

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.

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'.

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.

Then perhaps a core problem with tactics is that they only allow one solution. Most positional situations result in many winning moves.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

IDK

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.

Puzzles aren't good to learn tactics. Much better to analyse games and then the tactics are in the context of a type of position. The result is that more is learned, better.

Puzzles are much better for learning tactics.
Including because of efficiency and directly getting to the point

Yes that's one very bad mark for tactics. They put good players off because good players aren't going to be dictated to by some fool of a chess coach who might be far weaker than them, who sets up a tactical puzzle so there's only one solution. That's why puzzles are far from an optimum learning method.

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 ?