I've noticed that the puzzles, at least at my level (around 1700) always involve some sort of tactic that end in winning a piece or two or in checkmate. Certainly, this is the way they were intended.
Thus, it seems that the scope of these puzzles is rather narrow. It's easy for me to throw out options that would simply improve my position (like, for example, castling), winning a pawn, or avoid losing a piece or being checkmated. These are, of course, important parts of learning the game too, and I am confronted with that sort of situation in real play far more often than the positions that come up in the puzzles.
Do such positions appear in higher-rated puzzles? Or is there a reason that the focus is simply on tactical play rather than defensive/positional play? I know that a victory in a puzzle is supposed to provide you with a substantial advantage... but should it always be that way? It seems that in at least 90% of real game positions, the best move isn't likely to win a piece or more.
Thus, it seems that the scope of these puzzles is rather narrow. It's easy for me to throw out options that would simply improve my position (like, for example, castling), winning a pawn, or avoid losing a piece or being checkmated. These are, of course, important parts of learning the game too, and I am confronted with that sort of situation in real play far more often than the positions that come up in the puzzles.
Do such positions appear in higher-rated puzzles? Or is there a reason that the focus is simply on tactical play rather than defensive/positional play? I know that a victory in a puzzle is supposed to provide you with a substantial advantage... but should it always be that way? It seems that in at least 90% of real game positions, the best move isn't likely to win a piece or more.