Why study chess Tactics everyday ???

TACTICS TRAINER IS A GOOD TRAINING TOOL==BUT TE MOVES THERE ARE HYPOTHETICL

You seem to be missing the point completely about the study of tactics. GM Neil McDonald (in Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking) summed it up very well when he wrote that strong players are essentially "universal players" who are strong in all aspects of chess, although they may have a reputation as a particular type of player (for instance, Shirov as tactician/aggressive attack, or Karpov as a quiet positional player), that is due to their own style and preferences and not because they are weak in tactical or positional play.

He then illustrates that with a game where the positional Karpov (in Karpov-Korchnoi, World Championship match, Baguio City 1978) defeats Korchnoi in 28 moves using a blistering Kingside attack; and another where the great attacker Kasparov (in Kasparov-Bacrot, Sarajevo 2000) slowly squeezes the life out of Bacrot in a jewel of quiet positional play.

And on a complimentary theme, Vukovic, in the classic "The Art of Attack" wrote that for a true understanding of how to attack in chess, one must understand the elements of strategy and positional play as well. And he even goes on to illustrate various ideas using the "principle of two weaknesses," which IM Silman (among other strong players) also uses when teaching strategy and positional play.

You seem to think tactics and strategy are mutually exclusive when they are not. Capablanca (in a game against Mieses I think it was) offered his Q very early in the game (for a mere pawn), with the idea that if it was accepted, the deep combination that followed would positionally crush his opponent, while if it was declined (which it was), he would still gain a positional edge. This is tactics and strategy working together hand in hand.

As an important footnote, play through any collection of well annotated games, and you'll find that there are frequent annotations illustrating tactical variations that didn't appear on the board, but which did influence the course of the game; and these are often in the quietest looking games.

So tactics has nothing to do with "cheap tricks." Its that it is accepted as a general consensus that in order to make progress in chess, you can't neglect them anymore than you would any other aspect of the game. If you do then you condemn yourself to never attaining whatever true potential you may possess.

Strategy and tactics are not only connected, but in many ways are different ways of referring to the same thing. Think about it: Why do you gain space? To allow your pieces more freedom. Why? So that they can do something useful. But the only concrete way to do something useful (in the long run) is to win material or mate the king; if neither of these two things ever happened, a game would never be won or lost. You can only force your opponent to give you material in hope of alleviating kingside pressure with tactics, so if improving your pieces didn't lead to tactics, there would be no point in improving your pieces because, if you're not getting tactical opportunities, you are by definition not winning material or mating the king. So, looking at the big picture, strategy is just envisioning tactics that will happen.

Since strategy is only good in relation to tactics, whereas tactics are merely helped, yet not completely reliant on, strategy, tactics are more fundamental than strategy, so it's more efficient to look at tactics first because carrying out strong tactics guarantee execution, whilst strong strategy still requires tactics as a final step. As I think Estragon pointed out, though, you shouldn't take this into the absolute extreme and focus on just one part of the game entirely, not even tactics. Although tactics are basic, and the basics are the most important to master, you can never truly master, 100 percent, any part of the game of chess.

"As an important footnote, play through any collection of well annotated games, and you'll find that there are frequent annotations illustrating tactical variations that didn't appear on the board, but which did influence the course of the game; and these are often in the quietest looking games."

Indeed, this is an excellent point. Always keep in mind that maybe both sides are doing nothing in a chess game because all the chaos that was going on in their hypothetical chess game (variations they were thinking about but didn't play) was not to their liking.

Its a  little bit different in solve tactics puzzels you try to find  the combination, in a real game you try to find the best move 

its better to analyse  study tactical games.

example an player have Tactics rating 2900 or more , but when you play to a Gm ,  you not can win on Tactics. 

same for chess  opening if you  understand chess , then you will  develop the pieces, develop  and develop ,and not attack in the opening . study chess openings huge is important on the master level.

so, is tactics trainer a waste of time? what, then, hsould I be studying?

not too much there are more important things in chess, its better to learn that first. they told me.

the greatest chess players are master in attack defence endgame 

if u are a master in attack , u can win much and much.

Think of tactics as the building blocks of combinations and of positional play as well (many subtle positional moves are based on latent tactical threats or possibilities).

As a good place to start studying, I'm going to recommend a new book (I just got it today) called "Capablanca: a primer of checkmate." It reminds me a lot of the book "The Art of the Checkmate" which I read years ago when I was active, and which had a very positive effect on my game.

This new book looks to cover the mating positions found in The Art of the Checkmate, but it does so with lightly annotated complete games (miniatures), rather than game fragments. Its also in algebraic notation, whereas the older Art of the Checkmate is still in descriptive notation.

Mating patterns and tactics go hand in hand. Not every book on tactics also teaches the mating patterns, and none that I'm aware of covers them completely. A study of mating patterns combined with a good book on tactics (with the motifs explained and lots of well chosen examples) is a very solid foundation to build on.

Another fantastic thread around here.  

Question: How much would you say is study and how much is play for an amatuer chess player? Is it conceivable that most players could begin grasping the more advanced concepts of positional chess through primarily experience? 

I like studying chess.  A lot.  I'm never looking for the easy way out but I'm curious nonetheless.   

Thanks, Idosdos.  That's actually just about where I'm at right now.  Maybe 70/30 because I have a tendency to study too much.  

While I've been studying a lot, I can say I haven't been playing enough -- and that means I haven't been putting those tactical lessons into practice.  It does make a difference, and man, am I seeing it :(

Yeah I've been there, too.  When I first started pushing the pieces around last spring I was making tactical mistakes left and right.  Instead of just playing through it and getting used to protecting my material, I started studying and preparing too much and developed almost performance anxiety.  

Now, I just force myself to play as much as I can and analyze the games afterwards.  In addition - I spend a lot of time on ChessTempo's tactics trainer and endgame trainer.

I would recommend 80% play and analysis vs. 20% study (max.) for people up to intermediate level (~1700 FIDE).

Very good to know.  Thanks.

From what I've seen of Smirnov's horrible, generic, over-the-top marketing style used by lazy internet scammers and makers of soon-to-be landfill-products the world over, that rings a few warning bells. His prices can get staggeringly high as well for some of the courses. 

As a player, he is currently rated 981st in the world. He barely made Grandmaster with an all-time high rating of 2,505 set in 2008, and, according to his FIDE profile, hasn't played a rated game since April 2009 after his rating went down to 2,496. Now he seems to be trying to make a name for himself with very dodgy looking, over-priced products.

I haven't played chess for long, but I can tell he likes to prey on the naive, claiming to be able to teach the grand "secrets" of chess, proffering his GM title for credibility while he is one of the weakest GMs around. If his courses were as good as he claimed he'd be renowned internationally in the chess world. Instead you mainly get sockpuppet accounts singing his praises, and then reviews from actual buyers; usually very disappointed ones... 

Man, you're telling my story!  I, too, make it a point to go to ChessTempo's tactics trainer and spend some quality time with the problems there.   It has given me an "eye" for certain patterns of play that I'm getting to recognize much easier now.  The drawback is that if I mess up, the "trainer's" there to correct me.  SO not so in a game, where you have to know those patterns cold! 

I've still got a long way to go, but it's getting better.  I really appreciate the advice from the other players about backing off on studying so much and playing more often.  Just studying and solving problems has become a crutch for me.