The_Sloth_Sleeps
Arcane
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2016
- Messages
- 1,914
Puzzles are kind of bullshit - especially the chess.com ones. I prefer the lichess ones. However my main complaint with puzzles is that you get penalized for a good, or an OK move - and you don't get penalized for a very bad move. No, you *have* to make the perfect move and get rated on that. This is a dumb way to train. You will progress much quicker in pretty much everything by just making lots of small improvements. I also prefer Lichess because its puzzles from real games.
You missed the point (intentionally or otherwise). You probably never find the optimal move in a real game, however you insist on practing this way. In no sense are you presented with this situation in a real game, knowing that theres a perfect forcing continuation.
Therefore, as I said, its more effective to practice making good moves, not just perfect.
I disagree, it happens frequently in practical games that I find the best move. It happens even more often that I find a good move (2nd or third best option etc). The problem are those times when the move was utter shit. The frequency and severity of those errors is what influences the outcome of the game the most. Finding the best move in a given position is a skill like any other and can be trained like any other skill. if you train to find the best move, you will get better at finding the best move. Shocking.
There's a deeper truth to my point that you aren't understanding. I'm assuming (from your judgment) you are not a titled player.
If you are a higher titled player then maybe that's effective to always seek the perfect move. However I bet most times if you analyse your game where you did make the best move (and I too, often do make the best move), you will notice there is a horizon effect. While you and I may play "best" moves sometimes we often completely and utterly miss the point behind that move.
Now this "perfect" move you play is a bit delusional a claim because often its simple luck if you pull it off. Usually a perfect move is only presented in 2 situations. 1) a book move, 2) a simple tactical solution.
In a real game, its not always clear *if* there is a best move. Its totally suboptimal to waste time searching for the perfect move when there is none. In these positions you must try to find some kind of plan and play a move that works according to the plan (i.e. a good move).
Yes, yes, I realize puzzles are for improving calculation. And here is my gripe with this kind of isolation training. Its often not realistic. Which is, as I said, why I prefer lichess puzzles. But even then, if I get a +2 or a +2.5 from a move WHO CARES in real life? Its still a good move, especially if under time constraints.
... you train "puzzles" exactly to separate solutions from common sense moves. If you don't do that you lose your ability to actually calculate forced moves. If you keep making "good" moves you fall into the first and largest chess trap: stereotyped play. Chess is always concrete. Of course stereotyped play has its merit and should be employed in thinking and execution. But to reduce your play to it is limiting and will lead to stagnation.
Not sure where you came up with this idea, or why you think that way. Perhaps you are a beginner and if so then yes, do chess tactical puzzles. Indeed some tactical training is essential for everyone, to avoid blunders.
Compared to your idea, my reasoning about training with puzzles is pretty well established, and perhaps better explained by someone else like GM Igor Smirnov https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/2ha1ep/tactical_puzzles_do_they_help/
Theres other training methods that help develop calculation strength. I recommend something like this https://chessfox.com/improve-chess-tactics/
Anyway, there are some interesting studies done on chess calculation with some surprising findings (citation needed)!