Tactical puzzles improve tactical vision.
Why study chess Tactics everyday ???
Sort:
Sure weaken players say because they not understand chess. , strong players explain but not everything, GM Igor smirnov explain everything deeply always , because he have a deep understanding of the chess game , and he is the #1 favorite chess coach on ICC , and he have study psychology he know how the human brain work !
Look this video and you will see the real power of chess understanding real chess, it's not Tactics !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy10Q-b2gZU
I'm also on ICC I have seem GM igor smirnov many times play there , I'ts amazing he is fantastic !!!!!!!
msjenned wrote:
Besides polgar007 has any other member bought lessons from GM Igor Smirnov?
yes huge , they recommend him to me 
on ICC(internet chess club)
It wont hurt your chess if u do tactics. Nuff said
tigergutt wrote:
polgar007 wrote:
Hello everyone !
My chess coach Gm Igor smirnov(I get private lessons from him online) say study of chess Tactics everyday is wrong because.
1 people still make much tactical mistakes.
2 they can not use Tactics to the good strong players.
3 chess is a strategy game.
4 they not understand chess
5 positional understanding is the key to success.
6 etc
He have also a free video lesson about the wrong study.
i must admit i struggle to get this point to make sence
I think he means if you still do tactics etc, you will still do a lot of tactical mistakes.
To put my opinion here, I think tactics help a lot.. at 1900 rating, almost every game I have an Opponent or myself who make tactical mistakes, but almost always we dont see it!
If you are an attacking player or like very complicated positions, tactics help in your favour!
polgar007 wrote:
Hello everyone !
My chess coach Gm Igor smirnov(I get private lessons from him online) say study of chess Tactics everyday is wrong because.
1 people still make much tactical mistakes.
Wow, the GM appears to have severe problems in reasoning (or more likely, he knows what he is saying doesn't make any sense but thinks his students won't notice the fallacy).
His line of reasoning would also support:
- people still make many strategic mistakes, so they shouldn't study strategy every day
- tennis players still miss many shots, so they shouldn't practice every day
- people who study anything at all still make many mistakes, so they shouldn't study every day
Of course, the fallacy is that something that causes you to make many fewer -- and smaller -- mistakes than you would is somehow a bad thing because it doesn't help you avoid all mistakes.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Jul 21, 2012
0
#29
Tactics figure into almost every single chess position. But they are not usually the move that is actually played. The point being that a good strategy only works if you can also spot the potential tactics that your opponent will use that might spoil your strategy. In every well-played quiet game, there are hundreds of tactics hidden away in the sidelines. To not be aware of them means your strategy may have a tragic flaw in it.
"who gave you this idea that strong positional chess doesn't decide games? maybe not blitz games, those are obviously dominated by a constant series of aggressive tactical threats and not much else. "
I think the way I wrote my post may have been a bit misleading -- I meant it in a more hypothetical way -- "if you happen to not win for positional reasons... blablabla." Of course, if you do win for positional reasons and not tactical, then it is helpful to study positional stuff. My first paragraph talked about the benefits of positional skill.
-kenpo- wrote:
maybe not blitz games, those are obviously dominated by a constant series of aggressive tactical threats and not much else.
Some blitz games even (bullet) are won with positional play.
AcivilizedGentleman wrote:
To support what uhohspaghettio said, here are two games where I smash weaker players because of positional play.
Would love to see two games where you smash players of your level because of positional play.
The naysaysers call them magic DVDs in jest, but check the convincing testimonials. For example:
Last time I contacted you it was because I defeat an opponent rated 1000 points higher than me.
Yesterday I just finished a tourney and i defeated one opponent rated 1200 points higher than me then another rated 800 points higher. Afterward ppl were coming to me asking who I was, whats my rating and if I knew who I had just defeated as if I had defeated the best players around.
Not to brag but I thought those guys werent too difficult. I've studied GM secrets thoroughly. I have also studied your opening, positional and planning courses somewhat, but not like i should have. To top this off its been about 6 weeks since I've done anything chess related.
So for anyone out there questioning ANY of Igor Smirnov's course, hear this, they work! And this is coming from a guy who didnt completely study the aboved courses yet. The money I have spent on your courses has been repaid EASILY with the tournament I have won thus far!!
This guy is obviously the greatest teacher in the history of chess -- the testimonials prove it!
sapientdust wrote:
The naysaysers call them magic DVDs in jest, but check the convincing testimonials. For example:
Last time I contacted you it was because I defeat an opponent rated 1000 points higher than me.
Yesterday I just finished a tourney and i defeated one opponent rated 1200 points higher than me then another rated 800 points higher. Afterward ppl were coming to me asking who I was, whats my rating and if I knew who I had just defeated as if I had defeated the best players around.
Not to brag but I thought those guys werent too difficult. I've studied GM secrets thoroughly. I have also studied your opening, positional and planning courses somewhat, but not like i should have. To top this off its been about 6 weeks since I've done anything chess related.
So for anyone out there questioning ANY of Igor Smirnov's course, hear this, they work! And this is coming from a guy who didnt completely study the aboved courses yet. The money I have spent on your courses has been repaid EASILY with the tournament I have won thus far!!
This guy is obviously the greatest teacher in the history of chess -- the testimonials prove it!
I almost took that seriously.
Almost took me seriously, or almost took the testimonial seriously?
sapientdust wrote:
Almost took me seriously, or almost took the testimonial seriously?
The testimonial, obviously. I can't imagine you made that up yourself.
beating opponent 1200 points higher than him easy? i guess i should buy the book then. would been nice to beat magnus carlsen with ease after finishing the book
Jul 22, 2012
0
#38
tigergutt wrote:
beating opponent 1200 points higher than him easy? i guess i should buy the book then. would been nice to beat magnus carlsen with ease after finishing the book
... beating WITH the book (book as a weapon). 
While trying to win the game by a cheap tactic you often lose the game-LolLOlBUDDHA
That's at the grandmaster level, if you are at the grandmaster level you already have an extremely strong tactical ability.
I really don't get how you guys don't get this.
No it's not "at the grandmaster level". It's at the 1800 level at least.
I wish clueless posters would stop talking about "at the grandmaster level" when they don't have a monkeys what they're talking about. There are only about 1000 grandmasters alive.
Many IMs have written huge books on gaining small advantages. You really think this is all bs? Remember this fact next time before you talk about "I really don't see how people don't get this" next time, it's you who don't have a clue yourself.
Are you really going to sit there and tell me that having a strong pawn centre is meaningless? That the idea of a passed pawn is silly? That 1. ...h5 in a standard game gives you just as much chance at your level? Of course you can get a total bind on the position at any level.
If you'd like to try to own someone, you should probably actually read their post in the context it was supposed to be read. Its funny how poorly you read my posts, and how little you are actually understanding of what i said.
Also to the person posting his games, do you honestly think that your moves didn't have a tactical basis? It doesn't matter if you made your moves instantly, you still have a subconcious tactical ability. "Intuition" isn't only positional. Your tactical mind excluded moves. Just because there wasn't a clear combination doesn't mean the game wasn't also tactical in nature, every game is.