Originally posted by JusuhLook Jusuh, The first time you do a puzzle you do not give up after 1 minute.
No. The point is you should not give up unless you can solve a problem under 1min but to find problems which you CAN solve under 1min.
example: everyone (well, everyone who knows the rules) can solve this one in under one minute
white: Kh1, h2, g2
black: Kg8, Ra8
black to move and mate.
Look at the puzzles in Winning Chess Tactics exam. The first time I doubt you can solve them all in 1 minute. That doesn't mean you give up. Spend 5 minutes max and then give up, look at the solution and do it again.
What's the point of spending 1 minute on a problem and then giving up?
1 edit
Originally posted by RahimKDan Heisman:
Edit: You show me a reasonable site, master+ which says 1 min max of puzzles and I will show you a site which says 5 min max.
"All of the problems have to be easy enough to eventually be solved by recognition(!!!) (within reason). They also have to be basic enough to either be single motif, or very easy multiple motif combinations. The set should be a building block for more difficult problems."
also, check out this article:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman28.pdf
Originally posted by JusuhWell lets just all player lower rated players and beat them up. If you can't then pick lower rated players then that.
there is no point. Once more, the point is one should find problems which one can solve in under 1 minute. If one can not, one should not give up but to find easier problems.
Why bother playing players above your ratings since you can't beat them easily?
That's ridicilous. When I started the La Maza thing, 1000 problem and 7 rounds, I spent 5 minutes on most of the problems include the Yasser Seirwan Tactic test ones. After my 3 round I could do most of them under a minute.
What is the point in doing mate in 1 and mate 2 puzzles which are way to easy?
You need a challenge. Pattern recognition is built by doing problems over and over again, that doesn't mean you should spend only 1 min solving them.
If you can't solve a combination puzzle in under 1 minute, that doesn't mean you pick an easier one. You can still learn from it. In OTB you spend way more time on a normal move and I completely disagree with this 1 min thing.
Originally posted by Jusuh"Eventually"
Dan Heisman:
"All of the problems have to be easy enough to eventually be solved by recognition(!!!) (within reason). They also have to be basic enough to either be single motif, or very easy multiple motif combinations. The set should be a building block for more difficult problems."
also, check out this article:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman28.pdf
You see that.
5 min max, eventually you can solve them in under a minute by pattern recognition.
That's how it works.
Originally posted by RahimKWouldnt you say solving a problem like in the "Two part puzzle"-thread in under minute isnt a challenge?
You need a challenge. Pattern recognition is built by doing problems over and over again, that doesn't mean you should spend only 1 min solving them.
If you can't solve a combination puzzle in under 1 minute, that doesn't mean you pick an easier one. You can still learn from it. In OTB you spend way more time on a normal move and I completely disagree with this 1 min thing.
In OTB you spend way more time on normal move? well, maybe you do but if you cant spot the idea (like saccing the rook in "Two part puzzle"-thread) in under, say, 30 seconds, you are very likely not to spot it at all.