The thing with tactics is that it won't help you in some games, there isn't too many tactical problems.
In other games you might recognize patterns and will spot tactics within seconds for a quick mate or win of a piece or three. So solving tactics can never hurt you. It will also teach you to look for "idiotic" moves which might be the killer move.
I'm going through streaks. My record is 550 puzzles in a single day. Lately I have a lot of variability: some days 4, other days 90.
The number is not so important, even if the more is the best !
If we follow the Woodpecker method advices :
100-200 a day for low level, and 1000 for the GMI !
Use the same set of tactical exercises and try to solve them faster. No more than 15 days between each set (only one day resting is better)
It may take you several days for one set. If you are able to solve all of them in one day : choose a more complicated set;
For each puzzle, look carefully for each variation, and choose one (do not read the clue until you choose a move, even a bad one)
Put on time limits if you want, and some values for the good solution
It will be useful to evaluate your improvement
Tikkannen worked with Chess Tactics from Scratch
Look at de la Maza and Tikkanen FIDE profiles and do not hesitate to comment on their results.
de la Maza gain 300-400 elo, and Tikkannen only 100-200 (but has gotten his GMI norms !)
Is this method really useful ? May be to detect tacticals patterns (we are all aware of the back rank mate, or of the basic forks tactics, that we are able to detect duting a game). May be to train you brain to calculate.
But when there is no forced move/tactic, choosing the right candidate move is really not an easy task.
At the moment i try to solve 30-50 tactics per day.
Cheers,
Simli
Hello!
I think 100-200 tactics a day is maybe a bit too much. I gained skills by playing against (human) opponents in my chessclub and reading some chessbooks about strategy (not tactics). If you train mainly for short games (blitz, bullet) its maybe good to train tactics but if you want to play good games (and not just win in lost positions by simple tactics) then you probably should invest your time otherwise.
Of course you are able to have a great bullet-rating without any deeper knowledge about strategy at all. You have to avoid simple blunders and use simple tactics most of the time. If you are young and fast this could be the case. Longterm its maybe more pointful to train understanding of the game.
That's incorrect to think tactics are only for blitz/bullet/short games. They're fundamental.
Given a few hours a day to study chess, at least an hour is spent on tactics :) It teaches more than pattern recognition, it also teaches you to calculate, identify weaknesses, move when you are sure you have chosen the best MC, and dealing with stress and disappointment (say if you miss several or many puzzles in a row)... and also understanding yourself a bit better with how your objectivity can be clouded by outside factors. At least for me :)
Also, I personally enjoy the puzzles, there's something pleasing about them in that they're not a huge time investment, there's an immediate pass/fail, and no matter what you learned a little something more.
The 2000+ (OTB) rated players I've spoken to have all seem to be in agreement about tactics being key and not getting too focused on openings. Also learning endgames. (not blundering is most important initially, lol).
Missing tactics OTB (for or against you) is terrible and easy to solve :) Tactics are present in every time control.
Hello ioxod,
I dont think or said that tactics are useless, expecially for beginners training tactics is a great way to improve and reach next level. But later on its more useful - thats my experience at least - to train your understanding of strategy. In a way strategy is also tactics but not based on puzzles (to solve in a bunch of moves), its how you build a solid position, how to use and/or crate weak squares and how to create a good and playable position and so on.
By the way: I am also close to 2000 FIDE so I dont speak without any reason about this issue. ;-)
Greets!
#ioxod
Although you seem to be right and that agrtee with you, i'm always asking myself why spending so much time and only meet rarely such tactical position.
However, at low level (i mean my level !) i often lose a game because I miss a tactical trick or because i have to fight against a dangerous X-Ray or pinning pattern (for exemple)
May be Mozart did not learn a lot about piano technic, and may be Magnus Carlsen did not spend a lot of time solving puzzle (i would be very curious about his training program when he was a teen !), but they are genius.
All theses ideas put mysterious philosophical thinking !
@ioxod interesting post... i'm an average player, and openings have always thrown me, so i've spent a lot of time agonizing over and studying them. one 2000 player commented 'i just try to get through them...' so i guess he agrees with the 2000 otb players you've spoken to. that's encouraging - i sort of like studying openings --------- uh, except there are a trillion of them...
i like the rigor in puzzles; against an opponent, you can make 'mistakes' but in a puzzle, there is only one right move... although i may run an engine and if i chose a move close to that right move --- i'm probably fine..... i like the calculation aspect. i feel it's great for your game...and pretty enjoyable.
i suppose rigor is also why currently i'm enjoying end game puzzles... fewer pieces - you just have to figure out the right strategies and tactics....
but i only spend up to an hour or two on some days on tactics...... they're also interesting barometers in how my chess noodle is working that day... interesting - some days, can see clearly, others, nope!
@Analysator My apologies, I misunderstood. Thank you for your feedback, I value it :)
@doublebanzai good point about tactics performance being a measure of how the chess brain is working is true!
@Sholmes49 Indeed, I enjoy the particulars of openings, too, even though I know it isn't optimal for my chess progress (in terms of time).