A BIG question ....

I have a puzzlement. i know that It is recommended to resolve the puzzles to improve the game every day.

So, about puzzles, i have a rating between 2500-2700. (I did about 16.500 puzzles till now)

About blitz game, i have a ratting between 1750-1850.

and about rapid chess, i have a ratiing about 1800-1900.

Real ratting FIDE is about 1880 !

how is it possible to have such a big rating on puzzles and the real game to play so bad and disastrous ???

I am confused if puzzles improve the real game !!

any sugestion ?!

Because the Tactics Trainer rating is not a playing rating. 

Sorry.

However, it does appear that your playing ratings have been improving at a steady rate, so maybe the tactics practice is working.

apples and oranges

Possibly of interest:

"Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.
That 'chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah' thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time." - IM pfren (August 21, 2017)
"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2008)

Good question and answers, thank you!

Apart from the quotes of kindaspongey, it's worth bearing in mind what Jacob Aagaard has had to say about this (my own thoughts and experiences on this matter coincide with his). Basically he says that, on the surface, nearly all games, even at the highest level, are decided by tactics. Nevertheless, very often those tactical conclusions to a game are just springing naturally from the course of the game. Simply put, the player under heavy positional pressure (or time pressure because they've been spending a lot of clock time orienting themselves in unknown territory) or under an attack is much more likely to blunder, quite simply because it becomes harder and harder to find moves that just don't lose on the spot.

However, the reason for their deteriorating positions is nearly always a lack of understanding of strategy. And strategy underpins everything from opening and middlegame through to the endgame. This is way so many strong players recommend playing over well-annotated games by great masters of the past. In them, many strategic concepts are illustrated in a much more clear-cut way than in modern chess where it's much more cloak and dagger.

It's also interesting to note a point made by Hikaru Nakamura in an interview recently. The advent of computers has meant that players at nearly all levels are now aware that there are many more viable moves available to them at any one point in our games. Previously we humans rejected them as 'ugly' or 'not in the spirit of the position', but working with computers we've seen and learned that they can play virtually anything as long as it holds together tactically (here AlphaZero may auger in a new era, though). Nakamura meant that this has led to a strange paradox: he felt that at the top level, this process of constantly working in tandem with engines has made the best players stronger, but he also felt that 'ordinary' GMs and IMs (around E2500 +/- 100 points or so) today, have become weaker as a result, because they don't have the same feeling for the game anymore, compared to GMs and IMs of 20 to 25 years ago. Simply put, those players now play many more positionally ugly moves (inspired by the computers), which from a traditional perspective means that they're taking on strategic weaknesses, but they are not strong enough to find the subsequent concrete moves necessary to hold the position together in the long run, and so succumb thanks to all the positional weaknesses they've taken on.

puzzles are usually much easier to do (books, newspapers, internet chess servers, schools...). why?

- the starting position is given

- winning side is given (W or B)

- the way of winning is given (mate in 2, mate in 6, white makes deceisive advantage...)

- no time limit

- no pressure for potential misresult

all of these not exist in chess game, or all are opposite: nobody will approach and say, "ok in from this position you have mate in 5" or "you ll gain material advantage in 3 moves ahead", so it means almost every move in middlegame we should approach as new puzzle, searching for something which most of time does not exist, for this we do not have time.. and there is CLOCK, we can not asses one position 40 minutes just like that, because some time has to be spared for rest of game, even if yes, we use all time finding winning combination and gaining deceisive advantage, this advantage may be lost in time trouble easily.

puzzles are excellent to make calculation trainings, but when is the time to start calculation in game?? this is key question.

The simple answer to your question is that if you know that it is a puzzle your thinking is directed. In a game you are on your own and have to make your own decisions.

Many of my students are good in tactics puzzle solving, given the task white to move and win. However, when given a positional puzzle they often struggle to find the best move.

Besides there was a quote I don't remember exactly. It was something like 'tactics appear in better positions'

Chess is a gigantic house made of tactical bricks. This says nothing about the shape of the whole building yet it is true.

A few years ago, the Swedish grandmaster Nils Grandelius (currently pushing E2700), felt he had reached a plateau, and started working with GM Yevgeny Agrest (a Russian who moved to Sweden in his early 20s in the mid 1990s and took Swedish citizenship - so cut his milk teeth on the Soviet chess teachings). One of the first things Agrest said to Grandelius was that he needed to study the classics. It clearly did help to stabilize Grandelius' game, and he's been improving slowly but surely ever since, to the point where he's actually worked as one of Carlsen's seconds in the last two World Championship matches.

I can't remember where I read it, quite possibly it was comment by Dvoretsky about studying the classics. He basically said in terms of its application to modern chess, anything before Steinitz' later period (he started out very much as a swashbuckler, before he formulated his principles) is of no real use beyond the very early stages of a player's development, and that most Russian trainers considered Rubinstein's games as the best starting point because of his very classical and crystal clear style.

Nakamura makes a very valid point, and it made me think of a thing they used to say about Pete Sampras, the great US tennis player. He was the last Grand Slam tournament winner to have started playing with a wooden racket, and it showed because his touch was phenomenal. The modern composite rackets have such an enormous sweet spot, that even frame hits easily make the ball came back over the net (exaggerating only slightly. This gives unsophisticated players an almost level playing field, but it's no coincidence that the touch players still are the best (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc.).

The chess is very much the same. Sure, the engines are levelling the playing field to some extent, but look at Carlsen and what he did in the first half of this decade: he ground out long wins in equal endgames against his top level colleagues, time and time again. Once you're out of the computer preparation, you're on your own. You may have some help, but you're thrown almost entirely onto your devices. It's interesting to note that nearly all the top Western players have worked with former Soviet players/trainers. Wesley So reached the #2 spot in the world having worked for only six to eight months with Vladimir Tukmakov. Nakamura worked with Kasparov, Fabiano Caruana worked with Vladimir Chuchelov and so and so forth. Working only with a computer will only get you so far.

I've read the book, and I'm not sure this is correct. However, I know that Baburin did jump nearly 200 Elo points thanks to the work he did when wrote the book. It probably says a lot about what you can achieve when you work on your positional play.

Perhaps it is related to psychology. It is different when you are under pressure of competition.

It's mostly a question of positional judgment, with tactics flowing from there. As far as I know it's still considered a modern classic, and I would think that most of the assessments still hold. Would be more interesting to let AlphaZero loose on the positions!