Does consistently solving a massive volume of chess puzzles over a long period—like years—actually translate to measurable improvement in overall play, or is it just pattern-matching without deeper gains?
Has high-volume, long-term puzzle training boosted your rating or game performance? are there any scientific studies e.g., from chess psychology or cognitive science
@nnjuguna said in #1:
> Does consistently solving a massive volume of chess puzzles over a long period—like years—actually translate to measurable improvement in overall play, or is it just pattern-matching without deeper gains?
>
> Has high-volume, long-term puzzle training boosted your rating or game performance? are there any scientific studies e.g., from chess psychology or cognitive science
In my experience quality beats quantity. Spend more time on each puzzle instead of doing more puzzles.
@nnjuguna said in #1:
> are there any scientific studies e.g., from chess psychology or cognitive science
Oh, let's hope not.
But I'm not sure what "just pattern-matching without deeper gains" might mean, really. I think it's true at any rate that if you do want to progress past a certain level, you'll need to learn how to plan effectively (and thus tactical exercises by themselves will only take you so far).
yes, need to learn where the pieces will go not where they have been
Puzzles are overrated. In a real game nobody tells you there is a tactic, or for whom.
Penalty kicks are part of a soccer player's training, but you do not become a good soccer player by penalty kicks alone.
@tpr said in #5:
> Puzzles are overrated. In a real game nobody tells you there is a tactic, or for whom.
Indeed, quite often at the higher levels games fizzle out into a draw without any real opportunities.
@tpr said in #5:
> Puzzles are overrated. In a real game nobody tells you there is a tactic, or for whom.
In my opnion puzzles don't aim to imitate a game situation, the primary aim is to train pattern recognition. So even if you do only knight forks and you know beforehand that the puzzles are about knight forks, it will strengthen your ability to "sniff out" knght forks in a game. Often enough a tactical motif isn't shown on the board but the players see the danger because of pattern recognition and adapt their calculations.
#7
Assume 5 equal beginners start training an hour per day.
A solves puzzles.
B studies openings.
C studies endgames.
D plays 15+10 rapid and analyzes lost games.
E studies annotated grandmaster games.
How would they rank after say 1 year if they play a double round robin tournament against each other?
from my experience, puzzle training really helps. i used to do 10-15 puzzles per day, but i set some rules for myself , 1. don't do themed puzzles. i do the healthy mix so that i do't know what to expect thus enhance my ability to spot tactics , 2. Quality over quantity, i don't do random moves, rather spend enough time on each puzzles analysing the position . but doing puzzles alone won't work. need to play decent amount of games too .
@tpr said in #5:
> In a real game nobody tells you there is a tactic, or for whom.
That is why I would like to see more "real-life" puzzles where the best move *isn't* a flashy tactic, but one which keeps the evaluation more or less the same and not drop two points (and there will probably be more than one viable solution).