I agree the focus is on too hard puzzles for another reason: the easier tactics are far more common. At a certain point in your training you get very complicated tactics in wild and confusing positions.
I checked a few hundred blitz games for tactics, expecting to find some of those bizarre patterns but almost non came up...
Difficult tactics do help to concentrate and visualize, but your blindfold books are a more enjoyable tool for that to me :)
For tactics I use lichess where you can filter for easier tactics, try to stay focused and get as high a rating as possible. It is similar to a real game in the sense that you can do very well and throw it all away with 1 blunder which you should have seen if you were not a lazy detective at the end of your game.
Some comments on finding the right difficulty level on problems. I believe that the 85% level makes sense. The first question I need to ask is why in the world is a person doing these puzzles. If a person is doing these puzzles I assume it is so, they can have a better understanding of what happens in a chess position and problem, and become more proficient at using these skills to solve slightly more difficult problems as they learn from the ones they just did.
Before I go any farther I would like to state what I believe is one of the major reasons that students in general are not able to do anywhere near 85% of the problems in a given section. Take a trip back to the start of the section in a chess book. It may be on knight forks and shows some basic ones, a few a little more difficult and then the one’s that are pretty difficult and that not many students understand. The writer has shown the basic problems (level 1), a few the next level on (level 2 and maybe a 3), and then the problems jump to levels 8 and beyond.
Where is the opportunity for instruction to from go from step 3 to 8 so someone begins to understand the difference between the problems and what sort of things to look for in problems. Not last but least learns how to go about solving it. Also, are the problems leveled in such a fashion as to let the student learns from each set of problems and grow while they are working. What we do not want to happen and all to often is, students are asked to urn a four minute mile when you haven’t run a 6 minute mile yet.
I just was working on a tactics book from a well-known publisher who said something to the effect, If you find these problems too difficult then pay some more games and come back and they will be easier. If all I had to do was to play some more games and then I could be a tactics genius I would be one already. Authors need to make their problems fit with what they teach. And if they do not teach these ideas that are needed for the problems do not a large percentage of these hard problems.
I will use one of my own personal examples. I am pretty good in math, at least in high school. I really had to listen to the lesson to understand the material. I am not that way in chess. Let people learn while they do the problems, that is the reason for the problems. Don’t write chess books that have problems that everybody can do and then ones only the naturals can do. There are more middling chess players out there like me that there are naturals.
Beyond whether the puzzles are too hard, are tactics puzzles truly a good way to become a better chess player? They might just be a way to get good at solving chess puzzles. If there is an improvement from doing them, it might merely stem from the fact you are thinking about chess, rather than tactics. Answering questions about pawn structure, strategy, endgames, etc, might be equally effective.
How would you think about the time variable? Obviously someone can solve a lot more puzzles if they’re willing to spend 10 minutes on each one than if they’re willing to spend one.
I agree the focus is on too hard puzzles for another reason: the easier tactics are far more common. At a certain point in your training you get very complicated tactics in wild and confusing positions.
I checked a few hundred blitz games for tactics, expecting to find some of those bizarre patterns but almost non came up...
Difficult tactics do help to concentrate and visualize, but your blindfold books are a more enjoyable tool for that to me :)
For tactics I use lichess where you can filter for easier tactics, try to stay focused and get as high a rating as possible. It is similar to a real game in the sense that you can do very well and throw it all away with 1 blunder which you should have seen if you were not a lazy detective at the end of your game.
Some comments on finding the right difficulty level on problems. I believe that the 85% level makes sense. The first question I need to ask is why in the world is a person doing these puzzles. If a person is doing these puzzles I assume it is so, they can have a better understanding of what happens in a chess position and problem, and become more proficient at using these skills to solve slightly more difficult problems as they learn from the ones they just did.
Before I go any farther I would like to state what I believe is one of the major reasons that students in general are not able to do anywhere near 85% of the problems in a given section. Take a trip back to the start of the section in a chess book. It may be on knight forks and shows some basic ones, a few a little more difficult and then the one’s that are pretty difficult and that not many students understand. The writer has shown the basic problems (level 1), a few the next level on (level 2 and maybe a 3), and then the problems jump to levels 8 and beyond.
Where is the opportunity for instruction to from go from step 3 to 8 so someone begins to understand the difference between the problems and what sort of things to look for in problems. Not last but least learns how to go about solving it. Also, are the problems leveled in such a fashion as to let the student learns from each set of problems and grow while they are working. What we do not want to happen and all to often is, students are asked to urn a four minute mile when you haven’t run a 6 minute mile yet.
I just was working on a tactics book from a well-known publisher who said something to the effect, If you find these problems too difficult then pay some more games and come back and they will be easier. If all I had to do was to play some more games and then I could be a tactics genius I would be one already. Authors need to make their problems fit with what they teach. And if they do not teach these ideas that are needed for the problems do not a large percentage of these hard problems.
I will use one of my own personal examples. I am pretty good in math, at least in high school. I really had to listen to the lesson to understand the material. I am not that way in chess. Let people learn while they do the problems, that is the reason for the problems. Don’t write chess books that have problems that everybody can do and then ones only the naturals can do. There are more middling chess players out there like me that there are naturals.
Beyond whether the puzzles are too hard, are tactics puzzles truly a good way to become a better chess player? They might just be a way to get good at solving chess puzzles. If there is an improvement from doing them, it might merely stem from the fact you are thinking about chess, rather than tactics. Answering questions about pawn structure, strategy, endgames, etc, might be equally effective.
That would also mean it would be ideal to play against lower rated opponents. Hard to believe it's true.
The way I like to think about it is easier puzzles help with tactics whereas puzzles that are hard help with calculation.
How would you think about the time variable? Obviously someone can solve a lot more puzzles if they’re willing to spend 10 minutes on each one than if they’re willing to spend one.