Originally posted by moteutschits a great question my friend, personally i don't buy the study tactics, tactics, tactics - yes they are important but so are openings, strategy, positional concepts and endgames etc. try this if you think that you're tactics need improving
Since most people's answer to asking how to get better at chess is to study tactics, the obvious question arises: how do you study tactics?
http://chesstempo.com/
http://www.chesstactics.org/
regards Robbie.
For online sites chess tactics server is good but sometimes it gets you into the habit of rushing because the ratings are based on how fast you make your moves. Chess.com also has a good tactics series. For cds CT- Art seems to be the best imo. Best way to get good at tactis is do a lot of tactical exercises not study theory but solve and solve and solve. As for tactics being the most important thing to study I agree. Yes other parts of chess are necessary but if you are dropping pieces to two and three move combinations you are not seeing those other chess skills(positional strategy end game etc) will never be very visible. Say you are a master end game player but your tactical ability is at the 1000 level. You will never get to the end game to show those skills. That is why tactical ability needs to be well developed first.
Originally posted by onehandgannstraight out of Michael de la Mazas own book which i possess, have read, practised and benefited not nearly as much as other books regarding strategical points. it is true is it not that tactics arise from, spring from, are born from good positional and strategical concepts, if your positional play is sound what chances will you give to your opponent for tactics?
For online sites chess tactics server is good but sometimes it gets you into the habit of rushing because the ratings are based on how fast you make your moves. Chess.com also has a good tactics series. For cds CT- Art seems to be the best imo. Best way to get good at tactis is do a lot of tactical exercises not study theory but solve and solve and solv ...[text shortened]... he end game to show those skills. That is why tactical ability needs to be well developed first.
The thing I do is: I put this tab on iGoogle "Daily Chess Puzzle" which presents me every day with three chess puzzles, ranging from easy to hard. They're not that hard though, but I think it's not overestimated when I say it has improved my play at least a bit. After all, it does keep you practising.
Better off solving three rather simple ones every day, then one hard every month.
Originally posted by onehandgannyes i just re-read it and what a complete piece of nonsense it is, i am in the process of a game with my friend, he is rated slightly higher than I at 1560, there was practically no tactical opportunities until move 30, he was in trouble from the beginning not because of a tactical error but a positional error, he exchanged his dark squared bishop for a knight, the entire game he suffered dark squared weakness, what has this got to do with tactics, that right absolutely nothing, had he the foresight and the positional understanding he would have realised that the dark squared bishop to a player of the French defence is a very valuable piece and should have exchanged this instead, when the game is finished i plan to post it, under the title,' Look Daddy, no tactics', regards Robbie.
well you have the book he addresses that pages 23 to 24
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, OK, since it's a game in progress, I can't comment. But I can't wait to see the game posted under the "Look Daddy, no tactics" thread. 🙂
yes i just re-read it and what a complete piece of nonsense it is, i am in the process of a game with my friend, he is rated slightly higher than I at 1560, there was practically no tactical opportunities until move 30, he was in trouble from the beginning not because of a tactical error but a positional error, he exchanged his dark squared bishop fo ...[text shortened]... game is finished i plan to post it, under the title,' Look Daddy, no tactics', regards Robbie.
Well I dont think one game or your or my experience is suficiente to say what is best. My own experience is I did not notice my play and my rating improving until I started studying tactics a lot more although I have not done the 7 cirlces so cannot comment on how really effective that is at least for me. My own experience also is that my positional understanding increased after studying tactics since tactics concentrate on things like dark and light square weakness uncastled kings, etc.
What would be interesting is actually having three control groups all starting at the same rating say 1300 or 1400 that have all played about the same amount of games.
Then have Have one do a tactics only approach like the 7 circles for 6 months for say one hour a day.
Have another do a positionally concentrated approach like going through one of Silmans books like how to reassess your chess for the same amount of time.
and have one do a mixture of both
and then see what rating improvement each group experiences.
That would actually be really interesting.
I know it will probably never happen but your and my experience is not enough to say what is best. I think what de la maza says makes a like of sense. You do not.
That's fine
Originally posted by Mad Rookthank you for your support my friend, it hopefully will illicit the usual verbal controversies that make for animated discussion.
Well, OK, since it's a game in progress, I can't comment. But I can't wait to see the game posted under the "Look Daddy, no tactics" thread. 🙂