Answers.Body: <p>I'd recommend starting off with traditional puzzle solving. Once you get to whatever your target range is and have a good accuracy rate (80-100%) <em>and</em> you can finish each of the puzzles in 45 seconds or less, move on to puzzle rush. Of course, when you get to 100 - 200 points below your target, and are accurate and quick, you could gradually start moving on to puzzle rush from the traditional puzzle solving.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-02-02T04:02:53.657Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2021-02-02T04:02:53.657Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: vegancheese
Body: <p>I'm wondering what would be, in terms of efficient fast improvement, the best training module between puzzle rush (fast calculation and pattern recognition strengthening) and traditional timeless puzzle solving (deep calculation strengthening) ?</p>
  <p>Does one become better than the other at some specific elo range or vice-versa?</p>
  <p>I usually focus on timeless puzzles as I feel like deep calculation is very important for serious OTB classical/rapid games but wonder if it would be more time efficient to train with puzzle rush instead.</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-01-04T20:39:48.300Z
Comments.Text: In the absence of a controlled study of the sort which is unlikely to have been run, this seems like a request for off-hand opinions. My *opinion* is that both are useful. The ability to find deep combinations (which the untimed puzzles are better for) is surely aided by the ability to rapidly spot candidate moves (which puzzle rushes help with).
Comments.UserDisplayName: John Coleman
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-01-05T02:26:08.830Z
Comments.Text: Does this: https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/27949/307 answer your question?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Akavall
Tags: <learning><tactics>
Title: Puzzle rush vs. Puzzles
ThreadText: # Puzzle rush vs. Puzzles
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-01-04)
  
  I'm wondering what would be, in terms of efficient fast improvement, the best training module between puzzle rush (fast calculation and pattern recognition strengthening) and traditional timeless puzzle solving (deep calculation strengthening) ?
  
  Does one become better than the other at some specific elo range or vice-versa?
  
  I usually focus on timeless puzzles as I feel like deep calculation is very important for serious OTB classical/rapid games but wonder if it would be more time efficient to train with puzzle rush instead.
  
  **Tags:** learning, tactics
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: In the absence of a controlled study of the sort which is unlikely to have been run, this seems like a request for off-hand opinions. My *opinion* is that both are useful. The ability to find deep combinations (which the untimed puzzles are better for) is surely aided by the ability to rapidly spot candidate moves (which puzzle rushes help with).  
  > **username_2**: Does this: https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/27949/307 answer your question?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2021-02-02. Score: 2
  
  I'd recommend starting off with traditional puzzle solving. Once you get to whatever your target range is and have a good accuracy rate (80-100%) *and* you can finish each of the puzzles in 45 seconds or less, move on to puzzle rush. Of course, when you get to 100 - 200 points below your target, and are accurate and quick, you could gradually start moving on to puzzle rush from the traditional puzzle solving.
  
  
  ---
  
  