In amateur games, tactics exist even after just 15 moves of opening. As long as someone deviates from the main line or side lines. In endgames, tactical opportunities are possible in as simple as pawn endgames. For middle games, that's where most hidden tactics are. Keep practicing solving tactics. And study a Tactics pattern book.
The problem with learning tactics: they're unrealistic!
Sort:
I've been in plenty of middlegame positions where there were no tactics at all. For example, try analysing this board:
It's white to play. What tactics do you see here? How can white win a free knight or promote a pawn or deliver checkmate?
Jan 3, 2019
0
#4
Tactics don't appear on every move ;) It could appear on move 12, 16, 25, etc. Just be alert. If you couldn't find any, positional move ofc. Both players can't be that careful. Especially in fast time control. Even in standard time control, blunders happen.
Jan 3, 2019
0
#5
There is no immediate tactics, however both players must be able to spot tactics. In games between strong players, there are many tactics, but they are usually not played out because both players see them and they‘re prevented.
For instance after 1.Nd4 black must be aware that white threatens the fork 2.Nb5 winning a pawn.
Also black must think about if he can allow 2.Nc6 (fork) Ra8 3.Re7, double attack on a7 and c6.
For instance after 1.Nd4 black must be aware that white threatens the fork 2.Nb5 winning a pawn.
Also black must think about if he can allow 2.Nc6 (fork) Ra8 3.Re7, double attack on a7 and c6.
Jan 3, 2019
0
#7
That's why endgame knowledge is important. Every move should improve the end game winning chance of the player.
Jan 3, 2019
0
#8
Deranged wrote:
The problem with learning tactics is this: you know that the tactic exists.
You're not supposed to "learn the tactic" when you solve puzzles.
The point (other than learning common patterns) is to develop good habits like looking for loose pieces, weak kings, and probably most importantly: calculating forcing moves.
If you do such things habitually in real games, maybe 9 out of 10 positions it wont matter, but 1/10 positions you'll either instantly win material or you'll avoid a loss of material yourself.
Also these calculation habits are important because strategic and tactic (and positional) goals often intertwine. For example maybe you want to put your knight on a central outpost (positional idea), but to do so you have to remove your opponent's defender of that outpost with a forcing sequence (tactics). Then you might realize your outposted knight gives you a favorable endgame (strategy) so you leverage this to force your opponent to make uncomfortable trades (positional/tactical) and win in the middlegame by breaking through on the queenside (which will culminate in a tactical sequence).
Jan 3, 2019
0
#9
bong711 wrote:
That's why endgame knowledge is important. Every move should improve the end game winning chance of the player.
"Before the endgame the gods have placed the middle game"
Don't get me wrong, I probably like endgames the best, but sometimes your only trumps are in the middlegame phase.
Jan 3, 2019
0
#10
Deranged wrote:
I've noticed myself that I'm way better at spotting a tactic when it's been given to me as a puzzle. But I'm terrible at spotting tactics in real games, simply because I never look hard enough.
Yeah, that's probably true for everyone.
Although solving timed puzzles probably makes it worse because it encourages you to guess tactical-like moves.
So my suggestion for that would simply be: don't guess. Treat the puzzle like a real game, don't play the first move until you've calculated everything to the end... with the caveat that you shouldn't spend 15+ minutes on a single puzzle unless what you're trying to train is calculation. Probably not much more than 5 minutes really.
Jan 3, 2019
0
#11
Tactics flow from a superior position.
A lot of people have the wrong idea about the role of "tactics" and "attack" in chess. You do not attack in order to gain the advantage. Quite the reverse: AFTER you've gained the advantage, then it is time to attack, and to look for tactics and combinations.
Advantage is obtained by maneuver. Tactics, combinations and attack are tools that you must use to convert that advantage into a more readily usable form... eg: converting an advantage in space into a time advantage, then into a mate or material advantage.
of course, a random chess player on the internet knows better than hundreds of GMs who recommend this tried and tested method of tactics training. The point of tactics training is to drill the tactical themes into your head so that when the opportunity arises, an alarm will set off in your subconsciousness that a tactic is present. At higher tactic levels, it trains your calculation skills. An important part of your chess skill is being able to intuitively know when to look for tactical opportunities. Don't be dumb and look for checkmates in rook endgames except in some rare exceptions.
Jan 3, 2019
0
#13
blueemu wrote:
Tactics flow from a superior position.
A lot of people have the wrong idea about the role of "tactics" and "attack" in chess. You do not attack in order to gain the advantage. Quite the reverse: AFTER you've gained the advantage, then it is time to attack, and to look for tactics and combinations.
Advantage is obtained by maneuver. Tactics, combinations and attack are tools that you must use to convert that advantage into a more readily usable form... eg: converting an advantage in space into a time advantage, then into a mate or material advantage.
Sure in high level games tactics are almost exclusively played during the culmination of an advantage.
But in low level games tactics will just pop out of thin air because the opponent was careless.
Well, I guess if stockfish is the judge even GMs are missing lots of tactics, but I mean simple tactics that payers are able to see with a little training and/or good calculation habits.
Jan 3, 2019
0
#14
Ok, but, to be fair, I don't think a person can learn strategy until they're regularly not dropping material to simple 1 and 2 move tactics.
For example lets imagine a simple strategic lesson in a book. One side has a weak backward pawn, so the other side maneuvers around and attacks it, and eventually wins it.
A player who drops pieces all the time will think this lesson is completely pointless because their games are won and lost based on winning queens and rooks and players missing mate in 1. They've never lost because of a backward pawn, and they've never won because of one either.
But after a basic level of tactical competence is reached, players start winning and losing games based on something strange... somehow their pieces (or their opponent's pieces) are better placed. The tactics that win are simple, but unstoppable. That's when it's time to learn some strategy.
That's my POV on it anyway.
Gotta keep track of the loose pieces on the board. Board vision is basically what training tactics is all about. Like stiggling said, it's about developing good habits. I find this tough online, but OTB the habits pay off for me.
If you aren't looking for tactical threats in "boring" positions, you will find yourself getting slowly crushed by your opponents threats that come "from nowhere" and you will feel like your opponent "has squeezed blood out of a stone".
Jan 3, 2019
0
#16
Deranged wrote:
The problem with learning tactics is this: you know that the tactic exists.
...What are your thoughts on this?
It's a good point, even if it's been raised many times before. Such books exist already, e.g.:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chess-Tactics-Detection-Workbook-Everyman/dp/1781941181
Jan 3, 2019
0
#17
Deranged wrote:
The problem with learning tactics is this: you know that the tactic exists.
Many times in a real chess game, there simply won't be tactics available to you. You'll be staring at the board, searching for a way to get your opponent in a mating net, searching for a way to force your opponent in to a royal fork or searching for a way to win a free knight, but that opportunity just won't present itself. Your time will be ticking and you won't see anything. And the inevitable question will arise: "should I spend 3 minutes looking for a tactic that may or may not exist, or should I simply make a decent positional move or a simple trade instead?"
When you're solving a tactics problem, you know that the tactic exists. You know that there's a way to win a piece or deliver a checkmate. But that won't be the case in many real chess positions. So that's why the problems are unrealistic: because you've effectively been given extra information about the puzzle - information that you wouldn't have in a real chess game. And that information is that there exists a tactic.
In a real chess game, no one is going to stop you halfway through the game and say "solve this position, there's a tactic for you!"
I've noticed myself that I'm way better at spotting a tactic when it's been given to me as a puzzle. But I'm terrible at spotting tactics in real games, simply because I never look hard enough. Why would I waste time looking for a tactic when it probably doesn't exist? If I know that the tactic exists, then I'll put the time and effort in to find it, but I'm unusually unaware of it until afterwards.
So what I propose is this: strategy puzzles should replace tactics puzzles. Rather than simply finding a way to gain material or deliver a checkmate or gain a big edge, there should be strategic puzzles where nothing much is going on, and you need to find those quiet positional strategic moves, just like in a real chess game. This will make them more realistic and applicable. And the strategic puzzles should sometimes, but not always, involve tactics.
What are your thoughts on this?
I don't agree (mostly) - the tactics trainer on this site loves smother mates and I must have done 100 of them. The other day I actually had a smother mate and it was because I recognized that I could get the other player into a smother mate and his pieces were ripe for the smother mate.
Jan 3, 2019
0
#18
DeirdreSkye wrote:
stiggling wrote:
Ok, but, to be fair, I don't think a person can learn strategy until they're regularly not dropping material to simple 1 and 2 move tactics.
For example lets imagine a simple strategic lesson in a book. One side has a weak backward pawn, so the other side maneuvers around and attacks it, and eventually wins it.
A player who drops pieces all the time will think this lesson is completely pointless because their games are won and lost based on winning queens and rooks and players missing mate in 1. They've never lost because of a backward pawn, and they've never won because of one either.
But after a basic level of tactical competence is reached, players start winning and losing games based on something strange... somehow their pieces (or their opponent's pieces) are better placed. The tactics that win are simple, but unstoppable. That's when it's time to learn some strategy.
That's my POV on it anyway.
What you are missing is that usually tactics appear out of nowhere because of pieces that are in the wrong places all the time and shouldn't be there at the first place.
Tactics is not only about finding a tactic and winning material. It's also about preventing the danger before it appears.Knowing how to place your pieces can deal with more than 90% of the tactics before they even appear
Most novices think tactics are enough because of an on line myth created from ignorants. The truth is that many exceptional trainers and players suggested that training for beginners must start from endgames(Capablanca , Smyslov, Lewenfish , Suetin , Averbakh , Dvoretsky and others). Explaining that Dvoretsky says that learning to analyse a position is an important skill that will help the student to improve his tactical awareness much faster.
Overall, proper analysis of the position , the ability to read your opponent's moves and the ability to find candidate moves are skills that are more important for beginners , yet they are neglected because people believe that tactics will solve all their problems.
The highlighted part is a really good point.
It's not that I think beginners shouldn't start with a little of everything. Basic endgames, basic strategy, looking at GM games, etc. I think all of that is good.
Still, I think a sort of... mindless calculation of forcing moves (so to speak) is important because in the beginning chess is too... abstract. Like I said with the backward pawn example, you know, you can say all the right words, and give a beginner good examples, but I don't think it makes a difference in their play at first. The lessons are good seed that can sprout later, but I still think the first major undertaking (after collecting some basic knowledge about everything) should be tactics.
But again, that's just my take on it.
I strongly encourage all of you to stop the "unrealistic" study of tactics immediately. I desperately need a bunch of easy wins, and this would help a lot.
I'm still going to practice tactics regardless, but sometimes, I just feel that I'm solving extremely complex puzzles that I would never be able to solve in a real game, simply because I know what to look for and what to ignore.
Like when I'm solving a tactics puzzle, I immediately ignore all moves that would equalise my position, and I just go straight for the fancy stuff like sacrificing pieces. If I have to guess a move because I'm not sure, then my guess will often start with "I'll just sacrifice this piece and see what happens". Can you imagine doing that in a real game? Just sacrificing a piece and hoping it works?
The problem with learning tactics is this: you know that the tactic exists.
Many times in a real chess game, there simply won't be tactics available to you. You'll be staring at the board, searching for a way to get your opponent in a mating net, searching for a way to force your opponent in to a royal fork or searching for a way to win a free knight, but that opportunity just won't present itself. Your time will be ticking and you won't see anything. And the inevitable question will arise: "should I spend 3 minutes looking for a tactic that may or may not exist, or should I simply make a decent positional move or a simple trade instead?"
When you're solving a tactics problem, you know that the tactic exists. You know that there's a way to win a piece or deliver a checkmate. But that won't be the case in many real chess positions. So that's why the problems are unrealistic: because you've effectively been given extra information about the puzzle - information that you wouldn't have in a real chess game. And that information is that there exists a tactic.
In a real chess game, no one is going to stop you halfway through the game and say "solve this position, there's a tactic for you!"
I've noticed myself that I'm way better at spotting a tactic when it's been given to me as a puzzle. But I'm terrible at spotting tactics in real games, simply because I never look hard enough. Why would I waste time looking for a tactic when it probably doesn't exist? If I know that the tactic exists, then I'll put the time and effort in to find it, but I'm unusually unaware of it until afterwards.
So what I propose is this: strategy puzzles should replace tactics puzzles. Rather than simply finding a way to gain material or deliver a checkmate or gain a big edge, there should be strategic puzzles where nothing much is going on, and you need to find those quiet positional strategic moves, just like in a real chess game. This will make them more realistic and applicable. And the strategic puzzles should sometimes, but not always, involve tactics.
What are your thoughts on this?