Originally posted by Jusuhso whats the difference...? you know very well what I meant...
yes I knew of course that 🙂 , but he said he found site without solutions...
Originally posted by RahimK
I said i found a site with the puzzles but with no solutions.
you should try to understand not all of us speak perfect english.
Originally posted by JusuhSorry Jusuh, I read the post wrong.
so whats the difference...? you know very well what I meant...
you should try to understand not all of us speak perfect english.
I though you wrote with, but you clearly wrote without.
You should try to understand not all of us read perfectly everytime 🙂
Hehe, I found the puzzles at www.chessville.com
Hm..I downloaded the puzzles in .pgn opened them up into fritz and the first 2 I where exactly the same as the puzzles I was doing for the la maza thing. I seems that everyone copys the same 1000 puzzles!!
That's whats really annoying, why can't people make new puzzles. All the new ones are from Gm games and are way over most peoples head.
Anyways, I'll still do these puzzles. This is what I'm found to work pretty good. Open up the puzzle in fritz, try solving it then after you think you've got the solution, press game infinite analyses, play the solution out and go file replace. Now the solution is saved for that puzzle. Then go F10, to go to the next puzzles and repeat. Make sure you turn of infinite analysis before doing the next puzzle, no cheating.
If you do them the second time the solution will be saved, so turn of the notation pane before solving the puzzle and then click on panes notation to get the solution 🙂
Ah, free puzzles! To get the solution only take a minute max, so you spend 1001 minutes approx 17 hours. Is 17 hours worth it considering you save $30 or $40? I think not!! 🙂 That's like you getting paid about $2/hour.
How accurate are the solutions in the desriptive notation book?
Obviously they weren't computer-checked, but has anyone stumbled across any flaws in any of the solutions that it would be good to know about?
How does this book compare to other more modern books as a tactics manual?
Originally posted by skimsGoogle Reinfeld busts and your first hit is http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2008/08/reinfeld-busts.html. It's not a comprehensive list, but suggest a way to find more.
How accurate are the solutions in the desriptive notation book?
Obviously they weren't computer-checked, but has anyone stumbled across any flaws in any of the solutions that it would be good to know about?
How does this book compare to other more modern books as a tactics manual?
Originally posted by skimsFor drilling tactics and getting you acquainted with things like removing the guard and interference,two typical things us amateurs have trouble with, it's as good as any modern book.Tactical themes don't change.
How does this book compare to other more modern books as a tactics manual?
The only difference is there will be (more) flaws in the solutions.
So let me get this right.
You are doing something called; "1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate"
And you want the solutions.......😕
....surely if you have solved the puzzle correctly then you are looking at a checkmate.
If you are NOT looking at a checkmate then you have not solved it correctly.
So to get the full benfit of the time you are investing you must stay with it
until you do get the solution and see the path to the checkmate.
Get into the habit of trusting yourself and be prepared to some work.
Do not go looking at the solution if you cannot get it right away.
The exercises are designed to make you think and absorb the ideas/patterns.
Only go there if you suspect a bust. In which case you give yourself an extra
pat on the back for deciding the combination is unsound and for having faith in
your ability to spot a 'cooked' problem.
Originally posted by greenpawn34You are in true form: this advice is among the best I've seen in a chess forum in quite some time.
So let me get this right.
You are doing something called; [b]"1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate"
And you want the solutions.......😕
....surely if you have solved the puzzle correctly then you are looking at a checkmate.
If you are NOT looking at a checkmate then you have not solved it correctly.
So to get the full benfit of the time yo ...[text shortened]... the combination is unsound and for having faith in
your ability to spot a 'cooked' problem.[/b]
Originally posted by greenpawn34So let me get this right.
So let me get this right.
You are doing something called; [b]"1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate"
And you want the solutions.......😕
....surely if you have solved the puzzle correctly then you are looking at a checkmate.
If you are NOT looking at a checkmate then you have not solved it correctly.
So to get the full benfit of the time yo ...[text shortened]... the combination is unsound and for having faith in
your ability to spot a 'cooked' problem.[/b]
Say you are doing something called; "1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate"
And you DON'T want the solutions.......😕
uhm sorry but HELLO, you can always miss some defenses and "mate" the king by a miscalculation. plus, solving a mate in 4 by finding a mate in 10 doesn't exactly count as solving in my opinion. (maybe it does, but you need to see what you've missed or it won't be as beneficial.)
I believe this is because you hate computer analysis to the bone. If you had analyzed all your calculations in problems that you solve, you'd really not give such advice.
I'll go ahead and suggest the exact opposite thing: make sure you always check all your calculations (not only the mainline) with the solutions, or even better, with a computer whenever possible, it'll show you everything you've missed. and having faith is ok but understanding you are actually full of mistakes is a good way to learn.
It's those "aaargh just let me die please" moments that burn tactics in your brain, and nothing is better than raw objective tactical analysis of a computer to give such moments, or a well explained solution for that matter. It's not those "faithful" moments of "wow I'm solving these one after the other, go me!"
Originally posted by philidor positionwithout solutions, you work until you know you got it. that process is what improves you, not the mate itself. when you get it, in the case of a Good Problem, you also immediately know you got it. when you don't have it, it's all still hazy, and you KNOW deep inside that you're still really just guessing.
So let me get this right.
Say you are doing something called; [b]"1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate"
And you DON'T want the solutions.......😕
uhm sorry but HELLO, you can always miss some defenses and "mate" the king by a miscalculation. plus, solving a mate in 4 by finding a mate in 10 doesn't exactly count as solving in my opinion. ose "faithful" moments of "wow I'm solving these one after the other, go me!"[/b]
with solutions, let alone with engine, you work until the temptation of cheating wins over your discomfort. which usually takes minutes, tops, because we were all built for laziness. the breaking point tends to be very close to the point where you actually would start getting the greatest training effect.
Originally posted by wormwoodI see your point with the temptation, that's why I would recommend studying tactics on servers where looking up that computer solution is simply cheating.
without solutions, you work until you know you got it. that process is what improves you, not the mate itself. when you get it, in the case of a Good Problem, you also immediately know you got it. when you don't have it, it's all still hazy, and you KNOW deep inside that you're still really just guessing.
with solutions, let alone with engi ...[text shortened]... lose to the point where you actually would start getting the greatest training effect.
But still, I think without anything to point out your mistakes, solving tactics isn't as beneficial.
I had so many moments of "knowing" I got the problem, but I hadn't got it. I've also had many problems where I found the correct answer, or even the whole mainline and I was very pleased with my analysis, but in reality I had got lucky by calculating the sidelines wrongly. Without computer analysis I would never know about these.
Originally posted by wormwoodWould it be an idea, then, to produce a book that simply contains puzzles, without solutions - to avoid this 'temptation' problem? Perhaps producing a second book a few months after the first with some hints for the puzzles...athough I guess by that time people would get fed up and just look it up on their computers.
without solutions, you work until you know you got it. that process is what improves you, not the mate itself. when you get it, in the case of a Good Problem, you also immediately know you got it. when you don't have it, it's all still hazy, and you KNOW deep inside that you're still really just guessing.
with solutions, let alone with engi ...[text shortened]... lose to the point where you actually would start getting the greatest training effect.
I wonder if this has ever been tried before.
What's the best way to go through a book like Reinfeld's? Should you concentrate on one chapter at a time and go through it several times (a la de la Maza) or should the whole book be worked through first and only then go back to the start? Any tips on what works best for building pattern recognition and calculation skills? For instance, is it good to impose a strict time limit for each problem of say, 1 minute?