Lately I’ve been thinking about puzzles.
Almost every day I log on to Chess.com to do the daily puzzle. Throughout the day, I’ll usually squeeze in a few more here and there. I do appreciate the tactical awareness it gives me in certain positions. It feels useful in the moment — like recognizing that if the rook is here and the bishop is there, there might be a tactic to trap the king or win the queen.
But if I’m being honest, I’m not 100% sure puzzles are really helping me.
Maybe they help me identify key patterns. Maybe they sharpen my eye for tactics. But I mostly use puzzles as a way to “keep up” with chess. If I haven’t played a game in a few days, I’ll at least do some puzzles so I don’t feel completely rusty. It keeps my mind on chess, even if I’m not playing.
Still, I’m not convinced they’re as beneficial as sitting down with one of the books I recently picked up. The books feel different. They give me small nuggets of understanding that I can actually carry into my next game — ideas about openings, plans, or positions that feel more grounded than solving a random tactic.
I’ve seen plenty of discussions online about puzzles. Some people swear by them. Some people don’t think they’re that helpful. I do enjoy Puzzle Rush — it’s fun having a bunch of positions thrown at you until you miss three. That part feels more like a game than training.
I guess puzzles are a weird tool for me. I do them mostly out of habit. It’s less about trying to learn something specific and more about staying connected to chess. I’m not sure if that’s enough.
But for now, I’ll keep doing them and see how it goes.
Leave a Reply