- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
Originally posted by ivan2908Nunns learn chess tactics is very good! Havn't found any mistakes.
It kills my will for solving them. Like forced mate in three that is not mate at all. I have two books with mistakes. Is there any tactics puzzle book that is really accurate?
Originally posted by Varenkatrue. but in a game you can do the reasonable move if you don't find the killer. in a problem that's just getting it wrong.
When you play actual games, you don't know if a solution exists or not. So not knowing if a puzzle can actually be solved may not be bad for practice.
Originally posted by wormwoodMaybe the reasonable move draws and the killer wins.
true. but in a game you can do the reasonable move if you don't find the killer. in a problem that's just getting it wrong.
I don't see how doing puzzles under the disclaimer "there may not be a killer move" is worse than doing them under the crutch "there is definitely a killer combination to be found here".
Originally posted by ivan2908First of all, check your solution with software...it may be you that missed something, not the author. Second, many puzzle books do have some errors in them. When I find a bad puzzle in an otherwise good book, I simply cross it out, so I don't ever wate time on it when going through that particular book again. I've found more than one error in the Wilson & Alberston "303" books. I still like the books though, because they are not too big to carry with you most places, and have large clear diagrams. Why would I toss the whole book because of a couple bad puzzles?
It kills my will for solving them. Like forced mate in three that is not mate at all. I have two books with mistakes. Is there any tactics puzzle book that is really accurate?
EDIT- The Ultimate Chess Puzzle Book by Emms purports to be checked by software for accuracy. It is a very nice book, but I keep it at home because of it's size.
I hate that, I've found some glaring mistakes in our leading national newspaper. A recent one was "find the best continuation for white (to move)" the answer went into a long detailed analysis on 3 seperate continuations, but totally overlooked a forced mate in two, a very obvious one too. It's a bit dissapointing. I still "do" the puzzles, but I treat them differently, more like "find the mistake".
Originally posted by Varenkawell, as I see it, the difference is in the effectiveness of the training method. a correct solution is a correct solution, of course, even if it wasn't the one the puzzle maker intended. but it's going to cut into the effectiveness of the method if you're forced to keep second-guessing the premise of the problems. sort of like you were learning to read, but you couldn't trust the alphabet on being correct. it'll slow you down. frustration & annoyance, not so great for motivation those two.
Maybe the reasonable move draws and the killer wins.
I don't see how doing puzzles under the disclaimer "there may not be a killer move" is worse than doing them under the crutch "there is definitely a killer combination to be found here".
Originally posted by wormwoodBut that's exactly what you have to do while playing a real game. Is there a killer move in this position? Maybe or maybe not. Will you spend too much time looking for something that doesn't exist? Or maybe you'll give up too soon.
it's going to cut into the effectiveness of the method if you're forced to keep second-guessing the premise of the problems
I can't mention any tactics problem books that are accurate, but I can mention one that isn't. (This is the only one I've worked through so far.)
While "The Chess Tactics Workbook" by Al Woolum is a pretty good basic tactics book, it clearly was never checked with software for accuracy. (And this is the 4th edition I'm referring to.) I found that about 5 percent of the problems have some kind of mistake, typo, or oversight. (That's 1 problem in 20.) And I didn't check all of the problems in the book, but only the ones that were suspicious. So there's a chance that I might have missed a few. The most common mistake is that there is one or more alternate solutions not mentioned in the book. There are a few problems that aren't mate in the number of moves claimed. And there are a number of problems where the answers simply make no sense, or the diagrams don't show the correct pieces.
While I think the book has too many mate problems, I still think the book helped me. It's just very discouraging to know that this book is in its 4th edition, and it hasn't been software checked or proofread to any great degree.
Here's a link to an errata list for Woolum's book, which I used as a starting point. But bear in mind that the person who made this errata list doesn't claim that the list is complete. (I found about 16-20 additional mistakes.)
http://www.eddins.net/steve/chess/2006/11/07/51
Does anyone have Dan Heisman's new tactics book yet? (Titled Back To Basics: Tactics.) So far it's only available from USCF Sales, and I haven't seen a review of it yet. (Even Dan's web site has no detailed description of the book.) Apparently not a huge book, since it has only 500 problems. The USCF description doesn't mention if the problems were computer checked. If it turns out that Dan computer checked the problems and didn't include too many mate problems, I'll probably get it.
Originally posted by Mad RookDan Heisman has some of the very best chess training material that I have found on the internet, all free at the chesscafe archives...FYI for anyone who didn't know. His column is entitled Novice Nook, and the archives are easily accesible. This is great reading for anyone, IMO.
Does anyone have Dan Heisman's new tactics book yet? (Titled Back To Basics: Tactics.) So far it's only available from USCF Sales, and I haven't seen a review of it yet. (Even Dan's web site has no detailed description of the book.) Apparently not a huge book, since it has only 500 problems. The USCF description doesn't mention if the problems were computer ...[text shortened]... ter checked the problems and didn't include too many mate problems, I'll probably get it.
Originally posted by BLReidYep, I fully agree with your opinion. And his newest NN article should be posted tomorrow. 🙂
Dan Heisman has some of the very best chess training material that I have found on the internet, all free at the chesscafe archives...FYI for anyone who didn't know. His column is entitled Novice Nook, and the archives are easily accesible. This is great reading for anyone, IMO.
Dan usually does the right thing with his books, so I'm expecting that he did computer check his problems - But I'd like confirmation of that before I pull the trigger. And Dan mentions on his web site that tactics books shouldn't have too many mate problems, so I'd be shocked if his book does have too many of them.