Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:35:51 02/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 04, 2002 at 11:40:07, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On February 04, 2002 at 10:38:04, David Rasmussen wrote: > >> >>Thanks for the link. Great article! I too am a weak chess player, and I have >>also recently had an insight about focusing on tactics instead of positional >>knowledge. I have 40 chess books or so, and of course some of them are about > >I found this kind of things too dogmatic. >The most important part of learning is interest and motivation. If you despise >going through thousands of tactical exercises with nothing in between for >a year most probably your are going to quit after two weeks. This is like >the magic diets where you have to juggle your day around the diet. The target should be clear if your main target is not to play better then you can use another way of training. I believe that the target of most people is not to play better as soon as possible but if someone says that his(her) main target is to play better as soon as possible then I believe that tactics is the best way and using less than 90% of the time for tactics is simply a bad idea. >As always, improvement is an individual effort and depends very much on the >individual. That's where the importance of the teacher comes, NOT TO EXPLAIN >WHY Ba4 is better than Bxc6 in the Ruy Lopez. >Tactics will be a key for a player, but might not be for another. Tactics will be the key for everyone who say that the target is to play better as soon as possible and say that it is more important than other possible targets including having fun from playing. Most of players have not this target as the main target and this is the main reason that they often play blitz when they could use the same time for learning. There >hundreds of details that are important and some of them are not even related >to chess (like attention etc.). In general, tactics are very important >particularly at that level, but it is not wise to separate it from everything >else. >Tactical exercises are good, but it is never good to be 100% of the training. The point is that you can also learn from tactics about positional things when the opposite is not truth. If you see tactics against a king that did not castle you can learn that it is important to castle. If you only learn that it is important to castle you cannot learn from it tactics against a king that did not castle. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.