You've raised an interesting point about the paradox between puzzles and real games, and I completely understand the concern. Puzzles do create an idealized version of chess where a clear-cut solution exists, which is rarely the case in actual play. The problem-solving process in puzzles is more binary: find the "winning move" versus navigating the complex, often murky situations in real games where there may be no obvious win but rather a series of practical decisions.
However, I think it’s important to remember that the primary benefit of puzzles isn’t necessarily about mirroring real-game situations exactly. Rather, puzzles train specific skills that improve a player’s overall ability to navigate positions. For example:
Pattern Recognition: Puzzles help players internalize common tactical motifs like forks, pins, and discovered attacks. While real-game situations might not hand us a "puzzle solution," recognizing these patterns subconsciously is crucial for finding good moves in the heat of battle.
Calculation Ability: In puzzles, we practice calculating lines deeply and accurately. Even if a real game doesn't have a "solution," this improved calculation skill helps players weigh various options more precisely, leading to better decisions over the board.
Speed of Thought: Puzzle rush or streak challenges specifically enhance a player's ability to think quickly. This is an essential skill in blitz or rapid games where time management is crucial, as you rightly pointed out.
That being said, I completely agree that puzzles aren't a complete substitute for full-game training. Real games involve a more comprehensive decision-making process, balancing strategy, time management, and intuition, which puzzles alone can't teach. That’s why it's critical to complement puzzle-solving with other types of training, like playing long games, analyzing them thoroughly, and studying typical middlegame or endgame positions where deep strategic thinking matters.
Ultimately, puzzles are a tool, not a crutch. When used wisely, they offer a focused way to train certain aspects of chess that can absolutely benefit practical play. But as with any tool, moderation is key. The danger, as you mentioned, lies in over-relying on puzzles and expecting them to replace more holistic forms of chess improvement. A well-rounded training routine includes both puzzle-solving and realistic game experiences.
In conclusion, while puzzles offer immense value in sharpening specific skills, they should be viewed as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, real-game practice. It’s about finding the right balance and applying the lessons from puzzles to the broader decision-making process in real games.
People love puzzles. Although this is pretty new to all online platforms, in videos and in streams as well, community has spoken: we want puzzles! All the grandmaster even repeatedly talk about their daily routines, which almost in all cases includes a puzzle streak or rush or just some "warm-up" training involving it. Fine. They know what they are doing, still it is largely the fun aspect that may be major driving force. No harm done, though. They love puzzles, we do. What could be so paradoxical about it? Well, the thinking process itself is just different and hard to be transported into real games. In a puzzle you always know there is this solution that gets you the win or the decisive edge. In a real game in any given position there usual is no such solution. So you do not really follow the common advices to check all the possible captures, checks or unprotected pieces. You are worried about something, you feel under an attack or an initiative, so you think you need to defend or watch out or be careful anyway, you try to spot a decent plan or try to follow all the general hints by your coach, not to push pawns without need or keep the tension when unnecessary to resolve it, you try to keep the clock in mind, not move too quickly nor spent too much time on irrelevant decisions, and... and... and.. but you do not know about any "solution" to all those intercepting problems you face. So there is a certain danger involved into doing too many puzzles. Kind of paradox: fun, you enjoy it, you see so many patterns, you climb the ladders in ranking and rating - but does it really help for a decision process in a real game? Just something to think about.