- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Why are tactics critical for chess improvement at all levels?

#2

The image posted doesn't have a solution! I found a way to win the exchange but the position seems like it might hold more.

But is it 1...Bc5 2. Qc3 (2. Qxc5 Nxd3) Bb4 with the pin? It might even continue but I'm a little lost 3. Qc3 Nxd3 4. Qxd3 Rxf3 5. Qxf3 Bxe1 where you're up a piece?

The image posted doesn't have a solution! I found a way to win the exchange but the position seems like it might hold more. But is it 1...Bc5 2. Qc3 (2. Qxc5 Nxd3) Bb4 with the pin? It might even continue but I'm a little lost 3. Qc3 Nxd3 4. Qxd3 Rxf3 5. Qxf3 Bxe1 where you're up a piece?
#3

@rankweis-learning said in #2:

The image posted doesn't have a solution! I found a way to win the exchange but the position seems like it might hold more.

But is it 1...Bc5 2. Qc3 (2. Qxc5 Nxd3) Bb4 with the pin? It might even continue but I'm a little lost 3. Qc3 Nxd3 4. Qxd3 Rxf3 5. Qxf3 Bxe1 where you're up a piece?

It does have a solution but it is true that if White plays the most critical line, the position becomes calculation instead. I think I will change it to a simpler example. Thanks for pointing it out.

However I do not fully understand your line, can you please review it and rewrite what you mean? I think you missed a move ot two there. In your line, as far as I understand, Black is indeed material up so what is the issue?

@rankweis-learning said in #2: > The image posted doesn't have a solution! I found a way to win the exchange but the position seems like it might hold more. > > But is it 1...Bc5 2. Qc3 (2. Qxc5 Nxd3) Bb4 with the pin? It might even continue but I'm a little lost 3. Qc3 Nxd3 4. Qxd3 Rxf3 5. Qxf3 Bxe1 where you're up a piece? It does have a solution but it is true that if White plays the most critical line, the position becomes calculation instead. I think I will change it to a simpler example. Thanks for pointing it out. However I do not fully understand your line, can you please review it and rewrite what you mean? I think you missed a move ot two there. In your line, as far as I understand, Black is indeed material up so what is the issue?
#4

https://lichess.org/study/waZx4yUv/nrRA31Fl
This is the line I was thinking of but I knew there were a bunch of moves I wasn't calculating. I wrote 3. Qc3 when I meant 3. Qd4, my mistake

I don't think it's too hard of a puzzle, I just meant in the text as written there was no answer given, not that the puzzle didn't have a solution, especially since it was hard to set up on analysis with the image I just wanted to know if I got it right.

edit: Oh I see, I wasn't trying to say something was wrong, I just was here to double check the solution, I think it's a great article and a good puzzle too!

https://lichess.org/study/waZx4yUv/nrRA31Fl This is the line I was thinking of but I knew there were a bunch of moves I wasn't calculating. I wrote 3. Qc3 when I meant 3. Qd4, my mistake I don't think it's too hard of a puzzle, I just meant in the text as written there was no answer given, not that the puzzle didn't have a solution, especially since it was hard to set up on analysis with the image I just wanted to know if I got it right. edit: Oh I see, I wasn't trying to say something was wrong, I just was here to double check the solution, I think it's a great article and a good puzzle too!
#5

@rankweis-learning said in #4:

This is the line I was thinking of but I knew there were a bunch of moves I wasn't calculating. I wrote 3. Qc3 when I meant 3. Qd4, my mistake

I don't think it's too hard of a puzzle, I just meant in the text as written there was no answer given, not that the puzzle didn't have a solution, especially since it was hard to set up on analysis with the image I just wanted to know if I got it right.

edit: Oh I see, I wasn't trying to say something was wrong, I just was here to double check the solution, I think it's a great article and a good puzzle too!

Happy you liked it!

I understand now what you meant but I didn't write a solution on purpose, just to let people think about it.

Your solution is the intended solution yes! However there is a sneaky intermediate Bh7+ that makes the line much longer than I intended.

Thank you!

@rankweis-learning said in #4: > This is the line I was thinking of but I knew there were a bunch of moves I wasn't calculating. I wrote 3. Qc3 when I meant 3. Qd4, my mistake > > I don't think it's too hard of a puzzle, I just meant in the text as written there was no answer given, not that the puzzle didn't have a solution, especially since it was hard to set up on analysis with the image I just wanted to know if I got it right. > > edit: Oh I see, I wasn't trying to say something was wrong, I just was here to double check the solution, I think it's a great article and a good puzzle too! Happy you liked it! I understand now what you meant but I didn't write a solution on purpose, just to let people think about it. Your solution is the intended solution yes! However there is a sneaky intermediate Bh7+ that makes the line much longer than I intended. Thank you!
#6

Re: time spent on Openings. I believe the reason more time is spent on Openings than Tactics is because if you make a mistake in the Opening, and lose a piece, many times there is no recuperating from it in the Middle Game or End Game. It's analagous to running in a race. If you fall down at the start, your chances of winning are probably slim to none. Sure, you can get back up and you might even be lucky enough to catch up. But your chances of winning are not good.

Re: time spent on Openings. I believe the reason more time is spent on Openings than Tactics is because if you make a mistake in the Opening, and lose a piece, many times there is no recuperating from it in the Middle Game or End Game. It's analagous to running in a race. If you fall down at the start, your chances of winning are probably slim to none. Sure, you can get back up and you might even be lucky enough to catch up. But your chances of winning are not good.
#7

For an adult, learning tactics is essential, because he will not become a GM, but very close, according to the story of the greatest 'pick-up chess player' there ever was: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-story.

For an adult, learning tactics is essential, because he will not become a GM, but very close, according to the story of the greatest 'pick-up chess player' there ever was: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-story.
#8

Rapid recognition of simple tactical patterns is essential. I don't have this rapid recognition and I have to calculate everything, even one move and two move tactics. It is hard to even call a one move "tactic" a tactic at all. It is hard to believe that a one move "tactic" needs calculation or at least checking. But I can tell you that in my case it does need this. This slows me down terribly when I play chess. I am always getting into time trouble in Rapid 15+10 and it is impossible for me to play time limits faster than that.

I believe I actually need to do great numbers of one move and two move puzzles and that these have to be done by themes for the repetition effect. I have been doing a Chessable course that is actually a little bit too hard for me in some puzzles; meaning quite a few are 3 moves and some are even 4 moves. I can see how lost I get in the harder 3 move puzzles and in almost any 4 move puzzle.

Sight-of-board exercises, one move puzzles and two move puzzles are really the basic building blocks of training I should be doing in bulk, I think. If I can't see every one-mover in at least five seconds to ten seconds and every two-mover in say twenty to 30 seconds then seeing / calculating any longer tactics will be completely beyond me in Rapid, The longer tactics are completely beyond me for the most part.

I just wonder what the sweet spot for learning speed is. Should I do random selections of one-move puzzles at say 1700 rating to test myself? When I can do 50 in 250 seconds (2.5 minutes) would that indicate I am fast enough, at one-movers anyway? Or should I, as a low rated player, still learning very basics, be happy to do 50 of 1700 rating one-move randoms in 5 minutes?

Note: I will still study by themes but I will test my speed by random puzzles. I think that might be the way to go to get a handle on this.

Rapid recognition of simple tactical patterns is essential. I don't have this rapid recognition and I have to calculate everything, even one move and two move tactics. It is hard to even call a one move "tactic" a tactic at all. It is hard to believe that a one move "tactic" needs calculation or at least checking. But I can tell you that in my case it does need this. This slows me down terribly when I play chess. I am always getting into time trouble in Rapid 15+10 and it is impossible for me to play time limits faster than that. I believe I actually need to do great numbers of one move and two move puzzles and that these have to be done by themes for the repetition effect. I have been doing a Chessable course that is actually a little bit too hard for me in some puzzles; meaning quite a few are 3 moves and some are even 4 moves. I can see how lost I get in the harder 3 move puzzles and in almost any 4 move puzzle. Sight-of-board exercises, one move puzzles and two move puzzles are really the basic building blocks of training I should be doing in bulk, I think. If I can't see every one-mover in at least five seconds to ten seconds and every two-mover in say twenty to 30 seconds then seeing / calculating any longer tactics will be completely beyond me in Rapid, The longer tactics are completely beyond me for the most part. I just wonder what the sweet spot for learning speed is. Should I do random selections of one-move puzzles at say 1700 rating to test myself? When I can do 50 in 250 seconds (2.5 minutes) would that indicate I am fast enough, at one-movers anyway? Or should I, as a low rated player, still learning very basics, be happy to do 50 of 1700 rating one-move randoms in 5 minutes? Note: I will still study by themes but I will test my speed by random puzzles. I think that might be the way to go to get a handle on this.
#9

Interesting that the blog author today fell victim to the very same tactic as in the game Pinto–Freitas mentioned in the article, proving its relevance the hard way.

https://lichess.org/k1mWAC4d/white#26

Interesting that the blog author today fell victim to the very same tactic as in the game Pinto–Freitas mentioned in the article, proving its relevance the hard way. https://lichess.org/k1mWAC4d/white#26
#10

@mullerrj said in #6:

Re: time spent on Openings. I believe the reason more time is spent on Openings than Tactics is because if you make a mistake in the Opening, and lose a piece, many times there is no recuperating from it in the Middle Game or End Game. It's analagous to running in a race. If you fall down at the start, your chances of winning are probably slim to none. Sure, you can get back up and you might even be lucky enough to catch up. But your chances of winning are not good.

In my opinion, there is much more material around openings than tactics because openings are easier to market, and promise a quick finish to the game, while tactics is much more vague ("eventually a tactic will appear") instead of "the opening will happen 100%".

However, what you mention that losing a piece dooms the game, is true - the problem is that, losing a piece, will be to a tactic.
Even if you miraculously memorize all possible moves in an opening (including the bad ones, because your opponent will not know the theoretical lines, and will blunder tactics), once you are out of the opening, you are dead in the water again. Yes, you survived the initial stage, but you are back to square one, and your chances of winning the game are slim nonetheless.

If you work on tactics, you have a tool to get out of any situation. It does not matter in which phase of the game it is.

@mullerrj said in #6: > Re: time spent on Openings. I believe the reason more time is spent on Openings than Tactics is because if you make a mistake in the Opening, and lose a piece, many times there is no recuperating from it in the Middle Game or End Game. It's analagous to running in a race. If you fall down at the start, your chances of winning are probably slim to none. Sure, you can get back up and you might even be lucky enough to catch up. But your chances of winning are not good. In my opinion, there is much more material around openings than tactics because openings are easier to market, and promise a quick finish to the game, while tactics is much more vague ("eventually a tactic will appear") instead of "the opening will happen 100%". However, what you mention that losing a piece dooms the game, is true - the problem is that, losing a piece, will be to a tactic. Even if you miraculously memorize all possible moves in an opening (including the bad ones, because your opponent will not know the theoretical lines, and will blunder tactics), once you are out of the opening, you are dead in the water again. Yes, you survived the initial stage, but you are back to square one, and your chances of winning the game are slim nonetheless. If you work on tactics, you have a tool to get out of *any* situation. It does not matter in which phase of the game it is.