People over-rating the importance of chess tactics?

Lately I've seen alot of posts about how people are spending all of their time solving tactical puzzles. People doing 50 Tactics Trainer problems / day in addition to the other online databases of puzzles.

I just want to say in warning that there's a point where you need to move from, for example, algebra to calculus. Algebra can only get you so far. Likewise in chess, there's a point where you need to move from introductory chess study, namely solving tactics and building a good tactical prowess, to studying endgame techniques and learning how to master the game's techniques and ideas. Learn about pawn-structure; learn about imbalances; learn how to plan - stop relying on calculations every move and trying to find combinations. That only gets you so far! Like algebra, doing and mastering tactical recognition can only get you so far. It only got me to 1500-1600 OTB before I figured that mastering tactics only makes you really exceptional at being average.

If you could recommend any books for endgame techniques, pawn-structure, imbalances and combinations I would sure appreciate it! I am compiling this amazing list of books from these discussions. ;)

Endgame Technique:  Silman's Complete Endgame Course; the Rook Endgame videos on this site are good as well.

Imbalance: Silman's "Reassess Your Chess"

Strategy in general: "Think like a Grandmaster"

Attacking: "Art of Attack in Chess" by Vukovic

Pawn Structure: Andrew Soltis's "Pawn Structure Chess"

Practicing tactics:  "Sharpen Your Tactics!"

As a 1650 USCF player you are hardly a "master" of tactics.

Umm you could probably hit 2200 on tactics alone.  By studying mass amounts of tactics you will be able to flex your pattern recognition.  Most games at and below the master level are won on tactics such as white to play and win a pawn or white to play and mate in 3 etc etc. 

But his Tactics Trainer here is 2157, not that bad.

I think tactics are important, but not the only important thing. You're apparently at a point where your tactics are sufficient for the next level, but other parts of your game aren't. That's not that strange.

Depending on how you lose your games, of course. There's also a difference between being able to solve puzzles and to use the ability in games. In seeing your tactics and his tactics. And avoiding simple blunders...

Mine is 1900 right now, but I've been close to 2100 (2060 or so I think), and I would hardly call myself a master of tactics.

True - also let's not forget that Tactics Trainer ratings are inflated. My highest so far is 2394, and I am also far from being a master tactician.

While tactics are important, there is with no doubt an over-eagerness to study them and ignore the rest, all aspects are important, there's hardly a lack of sub 2000 games where someone looses their won endgame and turns it into a loss or draw.

And let's not forget the old saying, Tactics will naturally flow from a superior strategical position. There is a reason why Kasparov, or Tal, great attackers, didn't play like Adolf Anderssen.

I'm a beginner, but I've read a lot of posts and played a lot of games. Tactics definitely is not all there is to chess, but I don't think you can be too good at tactics. Tactics is like playing the piano, you have to practice, practice, practice.

If you think your a master of tactics go pick up Richard Palliser's The Complete Chess Workout.  The first 100 are simple but than they start to get very hard.  If you were a master of tactics you would easily be a Grandmaster

Thank you.

Don't forget Nimzowitsch legendary "My System" in that list.

I don't have that book, but am considering to get it.  And I didn't mean to say I was a 'master' of tactics, my bad.

Some decades ago, the study of "Modern Chess Tactics" by Ludek Pachman was instrumental in elevating my game. I've never seen a better book on tactics. But most players will hit a wall on how good they can get at tactics, because of innate limitation of calculating ability, based mainly on ability to visualize accurately x number of moves ahead. Take me, for example. The longest middle-game combination I ever successfully pulled off in my life was 7 moves; generally, 5 moves is my limit, and I will too often make a mistake or overlook something in a 5-move middle-game tactical calculation. Did that put a ceiling on my chess ability? No, I adapted, by studying strategy. This allowed me to defeat many players who were better than me at tactical calculation. As long as I could calculate well enough to keep them from pushing me off the board--and to recognize danger when I saw it--I could use a superior understanding of position to overcome them. With strategy you can keep the big tacticians from ever being in a position to employ their big guns. That is why the well-balanced chess player will study tactics to the limit of his ability, but will spend most of his time on strategy, because that is a deeper study and takes a lot longer.

acutally raw calucation is what tatics is

 I fully agree. There are other things to learn definitely, but if one is having high-score in Tactics Trainer but low score in CC, that only reflects one is maintaining double standards when solving puzzles and playing games! When you are being told that you have a problem you are thinking deeply, but in normal game you are not doing so! strategy is the backbone, but tactics is the flesh. Strategy is the chairman, tactics is the CEO. All our losses can be traced to tactical slips rather than strategical incompetency.

Anand still does daily tactics exercises. I don't see how anyone can be "done" with them.

I am better in tactics than with strategy.  I guess it does not hurt to invest in improving one's positional play.

I dunno, tactics v strategy it seems like an odd thing to stress about. And a false dichotomy. There's so much to study in chess... so much! Openings, endings, combinations, mating patterns, master games etc. etc. etc. whole books on just the IQP. Don't we all have book shelves of chess books we've read just one chapter of?

So, of course you need tactics, of course (and openings, and endings, and etc. etc.)  But how could anyone "hit 2200 just with tactics alone"? I mean what the hell would that look like -- "tactics alone"?

I've never met a good tactician who was butt-ignorant about the rest of the game. Good players always seem to know a lot about chess, in general.

You study all that you can, retain what you can, and hopefully enjoy the process. Fortunately I think everything reinforces everything else. No one ever got worse at tactics from studying endgames, and vice versa.