I read somewhere though that amateurs calculate just as far as masters, just that they calculate the wrong things.

Someone critisised Kotov's method for being too unpractical and I agree with him. Sure, all of the above positions could have been solved if you had calculated all relevant moves but then how do you explain the fact that masters are equally good at blitz. They "just see" and there is nothing in Kotov's book that explains this... Someone said that Tal never calculated, he just saw the combinations in whole units. 

I'm sure I am incorrect though, if I knew the answer my rating would be much higher...

analyzethat wrote on 01/15/09 at 23:53:13:

Have you ever read "Think Like a Grandmaster"? It starts with Kotov's personal story of how he went from Candidate Master to World Championship Candidate by dedicating lots of time to calculating the most complicated positions he could find in game collections, tournament books etc. Very inspiring, and this story speaks to me personally because I feel Kotov successfully solved the very same problems I struggle with in my calculations.

I think it's a proven fact that some people have managed to improve their calculation by lots of hard work. And I like to think that there is hope for me too.

Let me post a challenge to the competent readers of this thread:

Assume you failed to solve the following tactics out of a book, how would you go about learning them in a proactive manner?

Highlight the white text beneath to find the solution (the solutions are at the bottom... don't look!)

I WHITE TO MOVE




II WHITE TO MOVE




III WHITE TO MOVE




I 1.Bg5! Qxg5 2.Qc8+ Kg8 3.Qc7+

II 1.Bxg6 hxg6 2.Rxe8+ Bxe8 3.Ne6 Qd7 4.Nxg7 Kxg7 5.Qb2+

III 1.Nd7 Re8 2.Bxf7 Kxf7 3.Qd5+ Kg6 and black gets mated in a few moves...

Viking wrote on 01/15/09 at 20:52:23:


I play chess to win, that's my main motivation. The aspect of chess I love the most is complicated positions full with tactics. But funnily enough I'm not too keen on studying tactics.

Now this makes me reflect... maybe I like to study openings more because I know that ultimately they will occur in my games. Not that tatics do no occur but somehow openings are more hands-on and predictable. After I've solved a puzzle on a particular theme I hope to remember this apply it... but I can't be sure that I will be able to do so.

However not everyone feels the same about tactics vs. openings. They would rather study tactics above everything. So this leads me to believe thatit is my own psychology that is limiting me. I must come to a state of mind where I feel like the tactics study I do is rewarding and where I can systematise things in the same way as openings... just now it's just a lot of work and I feel like I'm probably not going to see it when it pops up on the board anyway. With openings on the other hand I have a good memory and feel like I can pretty much remember it forever.

I'm 20 and mynational (european) OTB rating is around 1800. My goal is 2300 and considering it has halted where I am now (just like my CTS rating) it is not only a long way to go but it seems its going to be very hard. Getting to 1800 was relatively painless.

Let me say something about my current method of learning tactics so far...
Basically once I've solved a puzzle I think about it for a minute or so and try to understand the motifs and features of the position that made it work...then I go on. I correct myself on the basis that I should not get any variations or moves wrong. an I do it in some more categorised way do you think?

I'm currently on level 5 out of 10 in this book which the CTart program is based on. I get about 1/3 right according to my criteria. The ones I get right go in a flash... I hardly have to calculate.. I just see it. I'm sure if I could do the same with the rest ofthe 2/3 I would reach my goal. Question is whether Seth_Xomas method counts or not

EDIT: in my criteria aswell is that I must be able to see the general idea within max a minute, otherwise I call it a fail. Overall I give myself perhaps 3-5 min per puzzle, although I don't clock myself (maybe I should, what do you think?)

Greetings,

I tend to agree.

I studied both the Marshall and then the Dragon - because I have a good visual memory, so I could follow the tactical twists and turns easily (which is why I was tactically-oriented in the first place!).

If you're visually-oriented, you tend to become good at tactics because you chose tactical openings.

Learning/practising these openings increased my tactical awareness, and so on...

However, if you're not good at tactics (not visually-oriented!?), that would seem to suggest that you may need to brush up on them - Nunn's book would be useful in this respect, because he teaches you both the basic elements (pin, fork, etc) and how to combine them. More to the point, like Wetschnik, he teaches you what to look for in a position - but I think it would be a good idea for you to see how a tactical specialist finds combinations in positions.

Using collections of positions - like the Reinfeld book - would help, provided you're already familiar with the basic patterns (Nunn), otherwise you'll just be beating your head against a wall until you look up the solution and realise what you're missing.

I'd tend to agree on not over-doing it, in terms of re-reading it too many times - didn't that chap who went through CT-Art give up chess, having reached 2100 (from 1600 or so)?

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas

edgy wrote on 01/15/09 at 15:58:48:

I stand corrected. In the 70s I assume the really studious could get much of the same effect (with a lot more effort) by attentive study of the game collections of great tacticians like Morphy, Alekhine and Tal.

I wonder if the "information explosion" in tactics is equally recent in the former Soviet Union, or if intensive tactics training was part of the secret to their dominance. Weren't there some good tactics books by Koblentz, for example? Any ex-Soviets here who can comment?

kylemeister wrote on 01/15/09 at 17:21:37:

I suppose I do regard them as a panacea; intensive tactics training is known to be so beneficial that I don't understand why anyone serious about improvement wouldn't make use of this training method. I am open to other interpretations, though.

Why specifically do you regard Seth_Xomas method as dubious? I only went through the Reinfeld books 2-3 times 12 years ago, and Reinfeld's patterns still bring a knowing smile to my face (and lots of points!) So if the issue is with the extreme number of repetitions and time reduction I might agree.

But the number of repetitions necessary for long-term retention is probably related to age; the brain's plasticity decreases sharply between ages 10 and 25. So my 3 repetitions at age 17 may well correspond to De la Mazas "7 circles" or more likely something in-between for an adult. Or 1 repetition if you're a 10-year-old Carlsen or Karjakin

Stigma wrote on 01/15/09 at 01:45:02:


I didn't.  I think a lot of American players of my generation (I'm 48) and older didn't.  The concentration on tactics exercises is a fairly recent thing, I believe.   

That said, you have to get your tactics in order somehow.  I did it by playing a lot of gambits and by spending a whole summer when I was thirteen analyzing the Wilkes-Barre.   

It's surely more efficient to do problems, and I'm sure that the players of my age who _did_ do a lot of problems wound up much stronger than players like me.

There were really only the Reinfeld books back then;  there are dozens these days, not even counting CT-Art and CTS and all that.  This is the golden age of chess information.