Has tactics training improved your chess rating?

I've spent a while on tactics trainer now and have seen my tactics trainer "rating" go from 1900 to 2300. But at the same time I haven't seen MUCH of a transfer much to my games, my rating is still around the same as it's been for a while.

They say chess is 99% tactics below 2200 or so. Does this really hold true?

How has your performance improved since doing tactics puzzles (on whichever website) ?

The tactics trainer keeps me 'sharp' and I believe it has also helped me see or consider combinations better. I have to feel that tactics training is a basic part of any workout...

maybe I have played otb games and been in trouble but managed to save the day by finding a tactic that wins the game.

I may not be good at opening but with my tactical knowledge I know some things to avoid.
otb I go up and down from 1400 to 1600-1400- 1500

I think the main thing is that you have to build not just the skill of "calculating" tactics, but "recognizing" tactical patterns.  You also have to work on your thinking process. If you aren't looking for tactics on each move, you are not going to see progress in your rating. 

I write a free chess tactics e-mail newsletter if you are interested at http://tacticstime.com that discusses this sort of issue a lot.

I have been on chess.com for about a month.  My tactics rating has consistently hovered around 900.  My online chess rating is about 1200.

 I believe the timer on the tactics trainer makes me rush my thoughts and I am not getting as much out of it as possible.  I do review the problems each time afterwards, but I think it is better to "discover" the solution on the first try.  If I take my time to think out the problem, my rating would drop and the problems presented to me would be too easy.

 I am frustrated that after a month and 8.4 hours (980 problems) of tactics training, my rating has not changed much.  I do think it has helped my game overall, but I am not able to get to the more challenging problems because of the timer issue.  Maybe I am just a slow thinker and why online chess works for me.

 Having said all this, I don't have any idea how to change the system.  The faster a person completes the problem should indicate how easy the problem is to them.

Over the past two and a half months I have put in over 26 hours working on tactics problems, and I am now doing a half hour of problems every day. I've also started analyzing my games. That has shown me that I am losing because I am missing basic tactics, ones I know I'm seeing when I am doing the tactics problems. The thought process is just different. So I would agree that tactics are the issue at lower levels, but doing tactics problems is not enough. You (and I) need to find a way to bring what we are learning from the tactics problems into our thought process when actually playing the games.

@ironic_begar

The problem is that you know there's a tactic present in TT, but not at every move in a chess game. Keep an eye out for the Seeds Of Tactical Destruction.

I started a similar thread a short time ago ("Value of Tactics" under General Discussion). It seems the consensus was to continue concentrating on tactics but make sure you have at least the basics of positional concepts and end game strategy under control. Tactics alone will leave you lost without other facets of the game. To quote Bobby Fischer "Tactics flow from a superior position."

Almost every game of mine that I analyze, I find tactical opportunities that I have missed. I will continue to spend a lot of time on tactics but not to the exclusion of everything else.

Hope this helps.

I am nowhere near your rating range, but perhaps I can give you some "food for thought"

Have you considered the idea that the reason you are not getting stronger is NOT poor tactical play (from what I sounds like, you are quite strong already), but perhaps some misunderstandings in the opening/middle game?  Have you considered getting a coach to point out the subtleties in your play?  I have seen players improve drastically in a very short time with the help of a strong chess coach.

 I haven't wasted time in tactics trainer, I am learning to spot tactics better. The point is that you have to bring what you learn in tactics trainer into your thought process during the game. And, as I said in my post, I'm not losing games because I don't understand endgames. I'm losing games because I'm missing tactics. I don't need a world champion to tell me that, it's pretty obvious from analyzing my games.

Besides, I am studying endgames. And openings, and visualization, and master games. Just not as much as I'm studying tactics.

I believe tactics training alone will get you to 1500. Afterwards, with a good base, you can easily get to 1700 with basic knowledge of strategy and position. Tactics will become less important at 1800. Then, when everyone makes no obvious blunders, you get more strategical games.

I agree with those who point out that you may be failing to look for tactics OTB. My rating online has improved dramatically (to around 2150) by simply looking at every check and capture on every move. I am AMAZED by how many very simple tactics I used to miss by not considering superficially silly captures.

What is your OTB rating? i feel as if once you hit  a certain level, mini tactics are something most everyone can see. I dont miss alot of big tactics over the board alot of the games I lose are usually due to the misevaluation of a position not loss of material and i'm only USCF 1680......But that being said maybe its your actuall playing process? that makes it hard to spot...I feel as if if has helped my rating, i Do chess tactics on Chess tempo.com and my rating has been improving in correlation with my rating improving on tactics trainer. Maybe also it's your style of play? If your game is more closed i feel like tactics are not AS present in the position as the open games? all speculation of course from a lowely rated 1680

i can't say. 

but i know that tactics are something i wanted to get better at.

now i look for them.  before i didn't even know they existed.

one day i hope i can find them in games, as easy as i do in the puzzles.

good article, 

the first time i used the trainer, i thought i was really getting some where.  i used the chess mentor as well. 

i stopped playing for 2 years.  for some reason i forgot everything.  i'm doing it all-over.   

i feel better about it this time.  i played a computer and did good. 

I credit Tactics Trainer with my 300 point game in Live Chess Standard, from 800 to 1100.

I've heard that the bump in rating is more significant for the beginning chess player after tactics training. But in theory, as 99% of chess is tactics, there should be an improvement in rating from tactics training alone, all the way up to approxiamtely USCF 2000. Garry Kasparov talks about this in his new tactics book, where the closer one gets to master, the less the 99% rule of thumb applies.

So, at least I feel good in knowing that tactics training will do more for my chess improvement than anything else, for a very long time.

I reset my tactics trainer history on a regular basis in order to get a different sequence of problems, among other things. I've done a few thousand problems on this site, and fewer problems over at Chess Tempo.

Rating

Problems

Chess isn't really 99% tactics... or if it is, then it's the other 1% that really matters. OK, tactics is certainly important in case you play some crazy, tactical, forcing opening lines... But no one is forcing you to do so. As a beginner, you should learn some basic tactical ideas (pins, skewers, back-rank threats, overloading, etc.) and some basic strategic ideas (center control, safe king, double pawns, bishop pair, good vs bad pieces in a given pawn structure, the value of tempo, activity, control of open lines, etc.) and then just look at a lot of annotated games.... then work on your endgame skills, as there you'll learn to appreciate the power of each piece... and then head to study the openings... but I suggest not heading for the sharpest ones in the very beginning...

I say that chess isn't 99% tactics because the overall level of understanding of the position is much more important. I have some friends who like playing chess occasionally (not often), but are really total patzers... so a few times I did play with them when they asked me and I've won all those games :without: calculating any lines (more than a move or two ahead), simply by playing strong moves that fit the position well, which is something they were unable to do themselves... so I essentially won those games on pure instinct, without any actual thinking and without calculating the tactical lines. In a sense, one could also use the bullet games here (1min each) as another example of what I'm trying to say... If you understand the position from a strategical standpoint, you are able to see a good move very quickly most of the time. If you're not, well... then you are forced to look at :every: possible move and calculate all the lines and that just takes too much time.

lots of different solutions (definitive answers have been proposed). some of them make real sense. however, unless you're a gm, most of them are only partial answers...besides, it's not the winning so much as it is how well you played. if i can play well (even if i lose by a thread), that's pretty good.  also, since it's a world of ideas...that's all that it really is.