so here I am, ive practised my tactical exercises, taken the advice of the most eminent of chess scholars (greenpawn34, a dude with a fide rating of 2000) and practised tactics, tactics and nothing but tactics, after all they tell me it doesn't matter much under an elo of 2000 anyway (Micheal de la Maza eat youre heart out) as most games are decided by tactical errors , openings ??, you best forget about them, completely unnecessary after all chess is 99% tactics anyway, i will use my most recent game to demonstrate what COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE this type of thinking is, game number 5067660 for those who are interested.
i play 1.e4, after all it should lead to a more tactical game the tacticians reassured me, my opponent plays 1...e5, mmmm, ok what do i do now, 'chess is 99% tactics, that's right tactics tactics tactics going through my head like an insane radio one jingle), how does this help me decide my next move?, ummm, thats right dear reader, not a complete and utter, super hyper negative nine below zero bit! 'But the position must first of all be viewed tactically', they said, 'all good player view the position tactically first', they said, mmm, in a state of incredulity, left dazed and confused like a flu ridden Scottish mosquito that after procreating has minutes to live, unconvinced, i turned to my daddy, the strategical/positional elements in the position for the answer. what are blacks weakest points I asked, the pawn on f7 jumped up, 'take me! take me! im only defended by the king', the pawn on c7, 'im quite weak, her majesty the queen is the only one protecting me and she can never bow before another piece more humble than herself', ok the picture is becoming a little clearer, i must try and co-ordinate either a dark squared initiative on the queenside against the c7 weakness , or a white squared initiative against f7 on the kingside, after all if our pieces are to co-operate together they can only truly be effective if targeted against the one colour complex, mmm, easy enough and strangely enough no tactics.
The clock on the wall looms large and starts to melt, someone outside lights a match and it becomes a flame-thrower, my senses tingling to a cataclysmic crescendo of heightened awareness i discover that the little pawn on the dark square e5 is undefended, that's it !!! i will try to create a dark squared initiative by attacking the dark squares and occupying the white squares, now what moves will help me achieve either this? i could try 2. f4, the Kings gambit, it attacks the dark squares which i want, but leaves the king just a wee bit exposed and doesn't develop anything and the pawn on e4 is undefended, what about 2. d4, it also attacks the dark squares which i want but doesn't develop anything and the pawn on e4 is undefended, what about 2.Nf3, mmm, it attacks the dark squares, develops a piece, occupy the white squares and wins a tempo, yes i will play 2.Nf3, easy enough and strangely no tactics. my opponent plays 2...Nc6.
Ok, how can i keep my initiative up against the dark squares, mmm that horsey sure is covering a lot of them, if i could put pressure on him that would help my cause, i could play 3.d4, it attacks the dark squares but doesnt develop a piece and the pawn on e4 is still undefended, what about 3.Bb5, mmm, it develops a piece, puts pressure on the dark squares co-operating nicely with my Knight, yes yes, it must be 3.Bb5, my opponent plays 3...Nd4.
wow crazy i thought, he must be an undomesticated wild crazy horse unaccustomed to the pressures of modern life, he sure gave up all those dark squares real easy, isn't this Henry Birds reply to the Ruy Lopez i thought, why has it never become popular in master play, i dunno, all i know is im no master. did i consider the position tactically, never gave it a second thought, 'gimme all those dark squares' i thought, but you give up control of all of yours as well, a small price to pay to keep up the crusade. 4. Nxd4 ..exd4.
ok Daddy how can i continue, well there is only one move that continues to keep up the initiative against the dark squares c3, yes your right, 5.c3 ..Qg5. lol, a cunning fox like manoeuvre i thought, but wait, our little friend that we identified at the beginning, the c7 pawn is completely without his queenly escort now! was he aware of this positional weakness or did he view this position tactically , 'like wow there's a fork, where my knife and napkin and we can have a meal'. my guess, probably the later. 6.Bf1 ..Bc5, man doesn't he realise those black squares are mine, 7.d3 ..Qf6, well ok,
now i must address the dark squared weakness in my own camp, i could play f4, this keeps up my initiative against the dark squares, but doesn't develop anything and slightly weakens the king, what about Qe2, mmm, it develops a piece, defends the dark squares as well as e4, yes! yes!, 8. Qe2 ..dxc3, now how can i keep up my quest for an initiative on the dark squares, only continuation 9. Nxc3 ..Bd4, what is this i thought, did i calculate anything, did i think i have a fork, did i look at the position tactically, not a jot, the little c7 pawn was crying out from the very beginning, take me, take me. only move that keeps to our strategy, continues the queenside initiative against the dark squares that we set out at the beginning is 10. Nd5 ..Qe5.
Now dear reader did I have to calculate any variation to continue my next move, did I need to look for any pins, forks, skewers, revealed attacks, checks or anything, ask yourself, which move continues our strategy of attacking the weakness on c7 as ENVISIONED AT THE BEGINNING, that's right 11. Bf4 1-0.
I can hardly describe the satisfaction that this brought me, the win was almost inconsequential, the formulating of a sound strategical plan, based on a positional considerations at every turn was immense, how the pieces worked in co-operation was beautiful. To those who advocate a purely tactical approach to the understanding of chess for those players lower rated i have this to say, 'Look Daddy, no tactics !'. -regards Robbie Carrobie. 😀
Originally posted by robbie carrobieParagraphs please!
so here I am, ive practised my tactical exercises, taken the advice of the most eminent of chess scholars (greenpawn34, a dude with a fide rating of 2000) and practised tactics, tactics and nothing but tactics, after all they tell me it doesn't matter much under an elo of 2000 anyway (Micheal de la Maza eat youre heart out) as most games are decided e this to say, 'Look Daddy, no tactics !'. -regards Robbie Carrobie. 😀
Game 5067660
Originally posted by adam warlockas you wish me Lords . 😀
Paragraphs please!
Game 5067660
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust to clarify what you mean I think the point you're making is that tactics are not as important as the people who advocate training with tactics seem to suggest.
[b]so here I am, ive practised my tactical exercises, taken the advice of the most eminent of chess scholars (greenpawn34, a dude with a fide rating of 2000) and practised tactics, tactics and nothing but tactics,
To me this misses the point.
I believe tactics are subservient to strategical ideas but the purpose of training with tactics is not to say that one or the other is more important. The advocates of tactics training are propsing this as a way of developing you're chess skill.
If we use football as an analogy then it would be possibly to be very knowledgeable about the game with good strategical understanding whilst possessing little skill and not being much good on the pitch. Practicing ball skills, sprinting, playing matches etc will develop the skill.
Well I know football and chess are not the same thing but my suggestion here is that solving chess tactics puzzle regularly is a good way to train and to improve your skill. This will be especially true for OTB players and cc players who play many games and like to move quickly. The training improves board vision offering a greater awareness of the possibilities within a position at a glance.
And this improved skill will be useful in all stages of the game.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo I guess you can stop studying tactics now? After all this game proves that they're a complete waste of time.
so here I am, ive practised my tactical exercises, taken the advice of the most eminent of chess scholars (greenpawn34, a dude with a fide rating of 2000) and practised tactics, tactics and nothing but tactics, after all they tell me it doesn't matter much under an elo of 2000 anyway (Micheal de la Maza eat youre heart out) as most games are decided ...[text shortened]... e this to say, 'Look Daddy, no tactics !'. -regards Robbie Carrobie. 😀
the point of the whole exercise was that i was so fed up with people giving advice like, learn tactics, tactics tactics tactics, thats all you need to worry about about until you reach master stage, let me ask you, how does that help in the thinking process, as far as i can see it is useless, i try to demonstrate how things must be viewed first and foremostly positionally in order to facilitate the thinking process
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy previous response was made, of course, with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
the point of the whole exercise was that i was so fed up with people giving advice like, learn tactics, tactics tactics tactics, thats all you need to worry about about until you reach master stage, let me ask you, how does that help in the thinking process, as far as i can see it is useless, i try to demonstrate how things must be viewed first and foremostly positionally in order to facilitate the thinking process
Of course, anyone who states that an average player needs ABSOLUTELY NO positional understanding is wrong. However, tactical ability is a HUGE factor in the average chess player's results. Anyone who disputes that statement will get no further response from me, as I'll consider it a waste of my time arguing further.
Robbie, it just wasn't clear to me what point you were driving at. Just how important is tactical ability to you?
By the way, if positional knowledge is the only thing of importance, why wasn't 11.Nxc7 a good move? It attacks the c7 square, captures the pawn, AND checks the king all at the same time. It seems to me that that move is a fantastic postional move! For that matter, was Black's 10th move a positional or tactical blunder? Think carefully before answering that question. (I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make with this paragraph. If you can't, then anything else I say will just be a wasted effort on my part.)
Finally, you might want to think about whether it's more important to do a lot of thinking during a game or win the game. If tactical ability doesn't require any thinking during a game but still allows you to win the game, does that fact make tactics any less important? (Of course, I'm being imprecise in the way I use the term "thinking". Spotting tactics does require thinking, because it uses the brain. It just uses a different part of the brain than does positional thinking.)
actually you won that game because of tactics the moment you opponent played c3(instead of d3 which would have covered the g5 square with the bishop) you got a double attack on the bishop and the g2 pawn giving your opponent only one move Bishop f1. If your opponent starts off that badly how can you expect not to win. I guess I would also expect to beat most opponents rated 100 points less than I for those kind of silly errors also. Does not prove much imo. Your opponent needs to study tactics and avoid those kind of double attacks from happening.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou should always consider tactical threats/chances first in your thought process.
the point of the whole exercise was that i was so fed up with people giving advice like, learn tactics, tactics tactics tactics, thats all you need to worry about about until you reach master stage, let me ask you, how does that help in the thinking process, as far as i can see it is useless, i try to demonstrate how things must be viewed first and foremostly positionally in order to facilitate the thinking process
What's the use of making a neat little outpost for your knight if you're about to lose a piece to a simple 2 move combination?
why you won the game now
opponent allow a double attack on the queen and the c7 pawn (tactics imo). Then your opponent put his queen in the worst possible spot and allowed the continued attack on the queen and f7 pawn by allowing you to play Bishop f4. Moves 9-11. After you opponent played Queen e5 he was helpless.
I would say both you and your opponent need to study tactics. You opened poorly and then your opponent played like crap and allowed all kinds of tactics.
And Robbie, I'll make one more point that should be obvious, but I'm not sure it's clear in your mind. White's 11.Bf4 was clearly a game winning tactical move. (More correctly, Black's 10th move was a game losing tactical blunder.) You can argue whether 11.Bf4 was also a good positional move, but the positional considerations of that move are not important to the outcome of that game.