To be honest there's no reason that you shouldn't 'get them on the first go' as long as you take the time to accurately calculate it. Getting puzzles wrong is more about taking guesses than anything else.
Just tell me frankly how many of u solved this in one go?
Sort:
Feb 15, 2013
0
#83
I solved it, but it took me a long time to see it. Real good one--very instructive.
OSenhordaChuva wrote:
I also solved both in one shot.
The first one I would not solve it in real game where u dont't know
there is a mate in there.
In fact this leads me to another question.
Why can I solve puzzles harder than people with a rating higher than mine and still can't improve my own rating? I guess I lose in other moments of the game.
well when i did chess mentor i met something really enlighting, maybe i misread it. But steinitz was a strong player like the other, but when he changed his attacking style and thought about positional chess he became the strongest. So i guess pure calculation doesnt beat a solid understanding of chess.
By the way did Steinitz discover something morphy didnt know already?
Also there are a lot of tricky openings where if you dont have enough knowlede about them, you can easily get into some bind forced to play a positional game and all you tactical strenght becomes rather useless.
Feb 15, 2013
0
#86
@ClavierCavalier: Presented as a puzzle, but actually a situation that was once a position in a game. May be the word 'challenge' should have been used instead of puzzle. If it is a puzzle, I agree with you.
@wafflemaster: I agree, but I would disagree that a move like Qf2:+ would be part of the combination in a game. If someone would tell me this move after a game, I would ask him 'are you serious?' It is like saying 'check' to your opponent. You don't, do you? I would count it though in the combination of a study.
@browni1341: No, it is a mate in four, because at page 5 there were four people reacting on my post.
@eddysallin: mate in 6, 7 or 8?
1 was difficult; took me a few minutes, but 2 was simple and only took a few seconds.
SmyslovFan escreveu:
OSenhordaChuva wrote:
....
In fact this leads me to another question.
Why can I solve puzzles harder than people with a rating higher than mine and still can't improve my own rating? I guess I lose in other moments of the game.
Your current highest tactics rating on this site is under 1300, so I don't know if your statement is true. But let's presume it is true.
This has been called the "Maza effect" elsewhere because Michael de la Maza recommended tactics training as the best way to learn to improve in his rather awful book, Rapid Chess Improvement. If it's true that you are excellent at solving problems but still have a very low rating, it's most likely because you have not learned how to incorporate your tactics skill into a real chess setting.
To help fix that, start studying complete games with excellent annotations. One of the first places to start is Alexander Alekhine's My Best Games of Chess, 1908-1937. I choose that book because Alekhine excelled at setting up the positions where tactical shots become common. Learn from him!
Thanks SmyslovFan for your comments and for pointing me a direction to improve my rating. I will try to figure out what 'incorporate my tactics skill into my games' really means.
Feb 16, 2013
0
#89
first one isn't mate i 4 either. Black isn't forced to take on g6 and has the zwischenzug with Qxf2 making it a mate in 5.
25. Nf5+, Kh8, 26. Qxg6, Qxf2 27. Kxf2, Rf7 28. Qxf7, X 29. Qg7#
Feb 16, 2013
0
#90
I loked at the players for the first one and played the least likely move that I would play, and it was correct 3 times in a row. Second one was well played by you, show off!
Feb 16, 2013
0
#91
Easy problems. The first one is a good problem... I had already solved it earlier.
sluck72 wrote:
first one isn't mate i 4 either. Black isn't forced to take on g6 and has the zwischenzug with Qxf2 making it a mate in 5.
25. Nf5+, Kh8, 26. Qxg6, Qxf2 27. Kxf2, Rf7 28. Qxf7, X 29. Qg7#
Ah, right on time! Good job.
....
In fact this leads me to another question.
Why can I solve puzzles harder than people with a rating higher than mine and still can't improve my own rating? I guess I lose in other moments of the game.
Your current highest tactics rating on this site is under 1300, so I don't know if your statement is true. But let's presume it is true.
This has been called the "Maza effect" elsewhere because Michael de la Maza recommended tactics training as the best way to learn to improve in his rather awful book, Rapid Chess Improvement. If it's true that you are excellent at solving problems but still have a very low rating, it's most likely because you have not learned how to incorporate your tactics skill into a real chess setting.
To help fix that, start studying complete games with excellent annotations. One of the first places to start is Alexander Alekhine's My Best Games of Chess, 1908-1937. I choose that book because Alekhine excelled at setting up the positions where tactical shots become common. Learn from him!