Studying tactics.

[Michael Mc Mahon]

Hi everyone.
I just have a question regarding studying tactics. I used to play a little chess 10 or 12 years ago but gradually stopped due to other things. Recently started to enjoy the game and i've started to study tactics to improve my game. I remember many years ago someone told me you should always set a tactics problem up on an actual board rather than solving it from a diagram as using a board will help improve your over the board play. just wondering now is this actually good advice.
Mick.

[IM Jack Rudd]

It's not something I can definitively answer one way or the other; my suspicion is that it may make a small difference, but if the chess board is unavailable (for example, you're solving a puzzle on a newspaper in a train), you'll still benefit by trying to solve the problem from a diagram.

[AustinElliott]

I remember many years ago someone told me you should always set a tactics problem up on an actual board rather than solving it from a diagram as using a board will help improve your over the board play. just wondering now is this actually good advice.
Mick.

Speaking as another long inactive/returning player, I can't imagine a static board (where you set up the position but don't move the pieces) would make much difference compared to a diagram - the main point being that you are going to have to "picture" / calculate possibilities in your head either way.

The point of having an actual board would be to do post analysis - play out moves, and especially the variations that some problem solutions give, and thus see what would have / could have happened. Comparing this with what you thought looking at the static position is the most instructive bit of doing problems, I reckon.

[Roger de Coverly]

Speaking as another long inactive/returning player, I can't imagine a static board (where you set up the position but don't move the pieces) would make much difference compared to a diagram - the main point being that you are going to have to "picture" / calculate possibilities in your head either way.

I suspect it's a skill level thing. Over the board players have to be capable of visualising and evaluating a position several moves on from the current one. Correspondence players have the luxury of being able to see the actual position on a board. I did find though that trying to analyse in correspondence purely from the moves played so far didn't really work once I was outside of opening comfort zones.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Speaking as another long inactive/returning player, I can't imagine a static board (where you set up the position but don't move the pieces) would make much difference compared to a diagram - the main point being that you are going to have to "picture" / calculate possibilities in your head either way.

I suspect it's a skill level thing. Over the board players have to be capable of visualising and evaluating a position several moves on from the current one. Correspondence players have the luxury of being able to see the actual position on a board. I did find though that trying to analyse in correspondence purely from the moves played so far didn't really work once I was outside of opening comfort zones.

I've analysed adjourned games and other positions like that, from diagrams, so using a board is not essential. One disadvantage of a board as opposed to analysing on a computer, is not being able to record and annotate the variations (unless you use pen and paper, of course, as you should).

I'm guessing the ideal approach is to:

(a) Set up on a board in a secluded and quiet room where you won't be disturbed or distracted, and also have a chess clock, and attempt to solve problems in the time that you would have available in a real game.

(b) After selecting a move over the board with clock ticking, stop the clock and get pen and paper out and analyse without moving the pieces, noting variations you had looked at with the clock running and extending them if needed. Then move the pieces and add further notes in a different colour, along with changing assessments if relevant. Also add notes on your thought processes as well.

(c) Finally, repeat all the above, but using a strong analysis engine and/or strong/player coach, to see what you have been missing or seeing correctly. The amount of post-mortem needed will depend on individual positions and whether they are one-shot combinational wins, or deep positional middlegame and/or endgame positions.

But I've never had the time and patience to do all that. I tend to just read through books solving from the diagram, even giving up at times and just reading the solution after a minute or two. Very lazy, but sometimes the effort to solve some of the problems just doesn't seem worth it - that is probably the time to put the book down and do something else, returning to it later.

[Joey Stewart]

One thing which I feel very much favours the board approach is that when you play a real match you will be looking at one, so it is good practise to get used to seeing the pieces in 3d.
Whatever your ways though, try and make sure you do the solving in your head and not through fiddling around moving the pieces - thats the real purpose of tactical problems as far as training goes.