"I also think it's best to use the TT with ratings on to track improvement.  You can still -- and I do -- ignore the timer, thinking until you are confident of the answer.  If you can't do it fast enough, that's just a sign you need to improve at that type of situation."

There are many times where you get 50 sec or so but you really want to get it right in like 25 sec so that you don't lose too much bonus. You have a choice between winning say a piece, a queen, or forcing mate in a few moves. Now, you may find the bishop win first, and this would probably take about 10-20 sec. But now you have to think "is there a better move that this stupid puzzle created?" But to find this would take longer and maybe the full 50 sec and if you end up getting it right you lose most of your bonus and when you get it wrong you lose almost 50 points! Very harsh! I think this makes the ratings somewhat inaccurate. It's better to go over more complicated problems higher rated as I do with as much time as you need to weave together tough combinations because picking the best move out of many in 20 seconds in a simple position won't allow you to do this. If you know simple tactical themes, then there's not much point in going over simple ones quick because you will be able to find one in a tournament. But much less likely the tougher combinations and it should be understandable for it to take a few minutes to find.

KillaBeez, I do agree that out of everything, tactics are ultimately the most important. You can't win with just building a crushing position but you miss a (usually not so complicated) tactic giving you a losing game. But, I think you are exaggerating this a little too much. Although it's true that most amateur games seemed to be decided by tactics, it was usually the positional features that gave him favorable tactics that could even be unavoidable depending on how much better the position was for him. it's the one with the positional advantage in the open game (for example lead in development) that allows the player to look for a tactical sacrifice mating the enemy king. That rarely happens out of a bad position since the pieces aren't coordinated enough and that's called a swindle.  The amateur often screws up winning positions in time pressure tactics. Also, if someone is defending their c6 pawn with two rooks very cramped there could be a tactic against a possible c file pin if you also have doubled rooks. So often the tactics are influenced by the strength of your position. there are plenty of tactics from worse positions but they can often be parried easily. So it would be an exaggeration to say that the positional play did not influence the tactical way of winning or losing. After all, what GM games don't feature tactics to win a game? It's not like an isolated pawn won't be defended enough. It's that eventually there will be a tactic to win that pawn, but playing purely tactical would not win the d5 pawn at all against good defense.

While I don't think tactics are the only way to improve, for me it is the greatest weakness at the moment.  I'm wondering if Blitz games can be used to help with tactics.  I would think that in blitz tactics become much more important and analyzing errors there should really help with tactics overall.

Good blog! 

I agree this an under-rated and over-looked skill.  How does it help to know a great strategy if you're always down a rook by the time you can try it?

I think it's over looked because it's a lot of work.

The only thing I would add is the suggestion to combine the tactics practice with the discipline of using a simple and practical blunder-check process before completing each move.  It is surprising how many relatively good players don't make a basic examination of opponent's checks and captures as the last thing they do before making each move.

Several players I know who started doing this have added literally hundreds of points to their ratings.

About 2-3 months ago I started using the tactics trainer everyday, 25 problems. I then go over the missed ones(failed) in the list afterward to reinforce what I did not see. I still miss easy problems at times. I also keep tactics books around the house. I have an endgame software I just bought and I am trying to slowly go through that when i have time. They say most people never study endgames. I like the idea of knowing more than my opponent as the game gets farther along. A game can change on a dime with tactics and also with endgames. A lot of tricks to know. For the first time I feel like I am actually "working" to get better rather than just playing and making the same mistakes. As far as postional play I would get a Silman book. I also look at the position  in the tactics trainer to see "why"the tactics are there(unsafe king, posted knight,open files,passed pawn,weak squares). Good position should lead to a tactical advantage.

Though many games of low-rated players are decided by tactics, positional play can still be important. Tactics and positional play is often very mixed up. You get tactical possibilities by playing good positionally, and you do little combinations to get an positional edge. I think tactics are very important (at least everyone says so), but you can't say that positional play is unimportant in every game that is ultimately decided by tactics. Btw, fun to watch Calvin and Hobbes argue .

Your advice sounds good to me. Thank you.

studying tactics is by far the best way to improve. if you had the calculating power of fritz i dont think too many ppl would beat you period regardless of positional knowledge. look into chesstempo.com, they have rated problems with no time limit.

Good contribution through your blog.

I think it really depends on what your goal is.  If it's just to be decent, studying tactics only is the fastest way to get there.  If it's to really understand the game and maximize your potential, I think a more balanced approach is better.  It's like studying opening traps.  Yeah it will help you beat weak players, but doesn't prepare you well to beat strong players. 

Most class players have little to none positional knowledge.  Most games between class players are decided by tactics.  Tactical knowledge can get you a long way without really much positional understanding.

I think tactics without positional knowldege is almost as bad as the reverse.  You need to blend them.  Working some on all areas of the game is far better than just focusing on one, and shows you how tactics strategy, openings, endgame etc. all blend together. 

I also think it's best to use the TT with ratings on to track improvement.  You can still -- and I do -- ignore the timer, thinking until you are confident of the answer.  If you can't do it fast enough, that's just a sign you need to improve at that type of situation. 

I think tactics trainer on page chess.emrald.net can help you, too :)

Interesting opinion. For me at least.

Hey, this is a blog.  If I wrote that as an article, then you would have reason to complain.  This is my opinion and I am trying to help others if they are willing to receive my advice.  Take it or leave it.

I'm not trying to belittle anyone, and your rating clearly says that you are stronger than me, but a 1600 player teaching other (<)1600 players what the "soul of chess" is. Is indeed the blind leading the blind.

I recommend the online free book "Predator at the Chessboard" by Ward Farnsworth. Excellent guide for tactics, it helped me a much.