Some Thoughts on Tactics Training

[russagm]

Looking for some opinions.

More and more I begin to wonder if tactics training helps much at all.

I highly doubt Fischer spent hours upon hours studying tactical puzzles. He spent his time reading up on opening theory, and perfecting endgame. There's a quote somewhere where he told a friend of his for his first chess lesson to go read MCO, and when he came back ready for his second lesson he told him to go read it again. Arguably the greatest player ever to live didn't say hey go practice some tactical puzzles until you can play at a 2200+ rating.

I'm not saying tactics problems don't help, but do they help a significant amount? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to study a few openings in depth, study games played by other players in those games, and see tactical patterns that arise in those games?

I don't know, I just hate the idea that I may be studying in a way that really isn't beneficial at all.

[munich]

Strong players are strong in tactics, too.
It might not be enough to be strong in tactics to be a strong player. However, you hardly become a strong player if your tactics are not strong.

So the same argument is valid for all other areas in chess. What if you are doing very well in Rook endgames, but you never reach rook endgames that are not totally lost for you. Is it then worth studying endgames at all?

I follow this assumption: tactics is not everything. But everything is nothing without tactics. If I cant improve in tactics, I dont need to waste time in the other areas (openings, endgames, middlegames).
Because there is no master you is weak in tactics. The tactical skill highly correleates to rating.

There is some interpretation in this sentence of yours:

that I may be studying in a way that really isn't beneficial at all.

I would hate that, too. So I informed myself how to improve in tactics. It does not seem to work like this: do thousands of tactic puzzles and you improve.
So I try to have a training, that improves my tactical abilities. My training is based on scientific research papers and my interpretation of these research papers.

One key aspect is "deliberate practice" (There are others, too). You can read here about what that is:
http://temposchlucker.blogspot.com/2012/08/deliberate-practice.html

[russagm]

I'm not saying tactics aren't very important, it's been said that chess is 99% tactics, and computers are so good because of their sheer tactical abilities. What I'm proposing is that, tactical ability isn't best achieved by studying tactical problems, but by studying openings, opening variations, and games, including your own.

[munich]

Probably the tactical ability can be learned from your own games, too.
I doubt World champion Anand had thousands of tactical puzzles at his disposal. Chesstempo offers probably more puzzles he has ever seen. Nevertheless, he became world champion.

But is it the best way to learn? If Anand had Chesstempo 30 years ago, he probably would have used it. Amongst other areas to be trained.

If I think about it, than it is probably not so much the quantity but the quality of a training (anand did for sure not as many puzzles as cmuroya17 for instance. Cmuroya did about174K puzzles here and every day many hundreds add to that number).

I guess, training tactics does improve your overall chessability. Well, if you improve in tactical ability that is.
To improve on tactical power, you need to have a good quality of your tactic training. I am here in endless discussions what a good training is. If you ask me, it is focusing on your errors and learn from them. Puzzles which you can solve right and fast - they are probably of little value. However, puzzles that you solved wrong - they are worth to be repeated some time later.
I am not going much more here into detail, but back to your question: Can my tactical ability become better with training tactical puzzles?
So my answer is: yes, if you use it the right way. Many people who are over the age of 30 dont improve, though.
They do at the beginning, but thats it.
So if you are young, you will improve. If you are allready a matured adult, improvement is more difficult. I am 39 and I guess it is fair to say I definitly improved. My positonal play improved, too, even though I did not train it.
The reason is, that I see tactical possibilities far ahead and some moves I do during a game are motivated to increase the possibility of favorite tactics for me, or to eliminate tactical possibilities of my opponent. My pieces play a little bit better in harmony together, I move them in a way that their power to possible (later) threads are maximized.

[tralala]

My theory about this is the following:

If you study chess fulltime and have a reasonable tactical strength decicated tactics training (solving puzzles) becomes less important. In your studies and your games you look at so many positions and analyze so many lines that you train your tactical abilities anyway. I doubt grandmasters devote much of their time to solving puzzles.

However if you are weak (<2000 Elo) or can't train fulltime solving puzzles is a very efficient training as tactical strength is so important in determining your overall playing strength.

not sure if the parts in italic have to be included

[interlist]

Funny you should mention Anand, he's a little famous for his problem solving ability.  Here's an excerpt from his wiki page of an interview he did with Susan Polgar:

    I started when I was six. My mother taught me how to play. In fact, my mother used to do a lot for my chess. We moved to the Philippines shortly afterward. I joined the club in India and we moved to the Philippines for a year. And there they had a TV program that was on in the afternoon, one to two or something like that, when I was in school. So she would write down all the games that they showed and the puzzles, and in the evening we solved them together.

    Of course my mother and her family used to play some chess, and she used to play with her younger brother, so she had some background in chess, but she never went to a club or anything like that.

    So we solved all these puzzles and sent in our answers together. And they gave the prize of a book to the winner. And over the course of many months, I won so many prizes. At one point they just said take all the books you want, but don't send in any more entries.

See:

Wiki page on Anand

Question of the week, Susan Polgar, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Sunday, 26 October 2008

I heard rumors that cmuroya17 is actually Anand in disguise, and that he's the reason CT no longer gives out books to the top 10 tactics leaders.

--interlist

(Apologies to Cesar and Richard).

[interlist]

Looking for some opinions.

More and more I begin to wonder if tactics training helps much at all.

I highly doubt Fischer spent hours upon hours studying tactical puzzles. He spent his time reading up on opening theory, and perfecting endgame. There's a quote somewhere where he told a friend of his for his first chess lesson to go read MCO, and when he came back ready for his second lesson he told him to go read it again. Arguably the greatest player ever to live didn't say hey go practice some tactical puzzles until you can play at a 2200+ rating.

[...]

The Fischer quote would sound better if you told it this way...

"... and when he came back ready for his second lesson he told him to now go read the footnotes."

I recently read "Endgame" by Brady, and the quote is ringing a bell to me - it's actually just the one piece of advice Fischer offered a beginner was to "read MCO, footnotes included" or somesuch.   The Brady book has a lot of information on Bobby's early days in NYC, and how he came to be such a good player.  There is an illuminating picture of him about ~13 years old or so, sitting in a public library reading Alekhine's 500 Games  without a board nearby.  He definitely studied all the masters.

He was an incessant reader of chess books, in fact, of all chess literature (even taught himself enough Russian to read their literature firsthand).

He played so much chess his mother went to a psychologist about it - she was told "there's worst things in life one could fixate on than chess".  There's a story told of how he hated to take baths, until his mother fixed him up a floating board he could take into the tub.  Then the problem became getting him out of the bath.  There's a picture of him (very young), studying a position on a floating board in the tub, his mother tapping him on the head with her foot to get out of the tub!

He played other people incessantly - his mother at first taking him nights to various chess clubs in NY.  Later, he just went on his own.  His school allowed him a lot of freedom to study chess as well, permitting him to go to various tournaments and the like.

He was lucky to find two mentors, first Carmine Nigro, then Jack Collins.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Carmine-Nigro-91-chess-champ-mentor-2882073.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/04/nyregion/john-w-collins-89-dies-was-fischer-s-chess-tutor.html
http://thevillager.com/villager_250/mentorhelpedyoung.html
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/30/133272280/the-troubled-genius-of-bobby-fischer

Fischer wrote two books, one was a collection of his games, the other a collection of tactical problems.
 
OK, ca suffit.

--interlist

[latestart]

Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess was not actually written by Bobby Fischer, and is not a good book.

"My 60 memorable games," however, is a good book.

Also, I would be careful hero-worshipping Fischer.  He did things a certain way, and it is veritably not the only way to master chess. 

"Doing tactics" is much of what Fischer must have accomplished while reviewing his games.  He just didn't have anyone to spoon-feed him the motifs.  I mean it sounds silly to say but it really is a simply retort... Of course Fischer didn't play Chess Tempo; Chess tempo didn't exist.

[interlist]

Well, seeing as I've posted about both Fischer and Spassky recently, it seems apropos to mention that I found in this blog:

http://chessforallages.blogspot.com/2012/08/temporary-exhibitions-fischer-spassky.html

a reference to a temporary museum exhibit on the Match of the Century in Reykjavik, Iceland.  Handy to know in case you're visiting National Museum of Iceland before the exhibit ends in Fall 2012.

For more info see http://www.thjodminjasafn.is/english/temporary-exhibitions/nr/3391

or http://www.thjodminjasafn.is/ (where you will also find the picture of the dancers and the boat).

Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess was not actually written by Bobby Fischer, and is not a good book.

"My 60 memorable games," however, is a good book.

Also, I would be careful hero-worshipping Fischer.  He did things a certain way, and it is veritably not the only way to master chess.  

"Doing tactics" is much of what Fischer must have accomplished while reviewing his games.  He just didn't have anyone to spoon-feed him the motifs.  I mean it sounds silly to say but it really is a simply retort... Of course Fischer didn't play Chess Tempo; Chess tempo didn't exist.

Hi latestart -
A couple of points if I may - I didn't actually mention the book as an explicit endorsement, and I don't think your comment suggested I did.  But in fact, I don't think its so bad for someone who's just learned the moves (eg you don't even need to know notation to use it). Still, out of curiosity - what book(s) would you recommend instead?

[16thompsong]

I wouldn't say that "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess" is a bad book. It was the first chess book I read after learning the moves, and it really pushed me to being better. Without it, I doubt I would be where I'm at. But yes, it wouldn't help a stronger player too much. It IS aimed at the beginner levels.

Also, people are mentioning that you can't play well without tactics. I have to disagree. For most of my playing I only played basic tactics, but could beat 1600 - 1900 level players. I also drew a master in a two hour game. Though, I also lost to that level of players just as frequently as I beat them when tactics cropped up (I fixed that).

[interlist]

[...]
Also, people are mentioning that you can't play well without tactics. I have to disagree. For most of my playing I only played basic tactics, but could beat 1600 - 1900 level players. I also drew a master in a two hour game. Though, I also lost to that level of players just as frequently as I beat them when tactics cropped up (I fixed that).

You're posting in a forum of a tactical training site, I think you can expect some differing opinions on that.  


@russagm -

My own opinion is that a balanced approach is best.  The problem with CT is that it's very addictive, and basically fun.  It offers immediate feedback problem by problem, so it's easy to get hooked in.  You get to see a great number of amazing positions very quickly - but it lacks balance being so tactically oriented.

Here's my opinion, or least what I think is a good program for me -

1) The most important thing is to play games, record them, and analyze.

2) After that study the games of others, masters and fellow players.

3) Next, do tactical problems.

4) Study positional books or books that emphasize positional play.

5) Openings.

6) Endgames.

In that order of priority, and then in reverse order for the last four items.

(At some point you will most likely concentrate for an extended period to study openings, and then endgames, being motivated by some recent result from tournament play.  Unless you're too busy playing on CT that you forget both tournament play and showering).

--interlist

[3253]

My own opinion is that a balanced approach is best.  The problem with CT is that it's very addictive, and basically fun.  It offers immediate feedback problem by problem, so it's easy to get hooked in.  You get to see a great number of amazing positions very quickly - but it lacks balance being so tactically oriented.

Here's my opinion, or least what I think is a good program for me -
1) The most important thing is to play games, record them, and analyze.
2) After that study the games of others, masters and fellow players.
3) Next, do tactical problems.
4) Study positional books or books that emphasize positional play.
5) Openings.
6) Endgames.
In that order of priority, and then in reverse order for the last four items.

(At some point you will most likely concentrate for an extended period to study openings, and then endgames, being motivated by some recent result from tournament play.  Unless you're too busy playing on CT that you forget both tournament play and showering).

--interlist

Thanks for that Interlist.  It's all excellent advice, especially the showering, and breaks, and other things too hahaha.

[uri blass]

Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess was not actually written by Bobby Fischer, and is not a good book.

"My 60 memorable games," however, is a good book.

Also, I would be careful hero-worshipping Fischer.  He did things a certain way, and it is veritably not the only way to master chess. 

"Doing tactics" is much of what Fischer must have accomplished while reviewing his games.  He just didn't have anyone to spoon-feed him the motifs.  I mean it sounds silly to say but it really is a simply retort... Of course Fischer didn't play Chess Tempo; Chess tempo didn't exist.

I totally disagree.
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is a book for beginners(most of the people who know the rules of chess that I can win against them easily without a queen and 2 rooks)  but I believe that it is  a good book for beginners.

I learned nothing from "Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess" but the only reason is that when I bought that book I was at level of 1400 or something like that and 1400 is not a beginner.

[interlist]

[...]
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess is a book for beginners(most of the people who know the rules of chess that I can win against them easily without a queen and 2 rooks)  but I believe that it is  a good book for beginners. [...]

And lest people think Fischer didn't really care to instruct beginners, he did write a beginner's column in Boy's Life for about four years in the late 1960's.  You can find it on google books, but Edward Winter has a nice introduction and links here:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fischer2.html

Sjáumst,

--interlist

[moth]

I don't think by exclusively solving puzzles any player will get very far, but it surely must help. Recognizing various tactical motifs in a short amount of time saves time on the clock calculating, calculating hard problems builds vision which again saves clock time and reduces calculation errors, and not only that but it builds up what I call "chess endurance" which I define as the ability to play tactically sound chess for longer periods of time w/o burn out.

For me solving puzzles is nice as it doesn't require a huge time commitment (don't have to bust out the board and page laboriously page after page etc.) and works on some of the bare bone necessary fundamentals to playing the game well.
Also, Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess has a few great tactical motifs that I learned from it but is probably used best as a first or 2nd book introduction to chess literature. Unfortunately the first chess book I read was Silman's Reassess Your Chess 3rd edition which caused all sorts of problems for me at that level... but that's off topic.