08 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo sense in beating a dead horse, but I really would like to know if you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. Have you stopped studying tactics, or do you plan to stop studying tactics soon? (You're still unclear on whether you think tactics study is completely useless or just not quite as useful as positional study.)
gentlemen, you are missing the point, forget the game, it was simply used as a reference, the whole exercise was to show and prove by reference that lower rated players, like myself, benefit more by studying the game positionally/strategically than we would from any tactical awareness or otherwise.
why and how a tactical awareness helps after 1. having taken the time , i still remain however, yours sincerely unconvinced. Robbie Carrobie
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieInteresting, I guess you did end up getting some comments after all. And not one in support of your position. Oh well, cya! 😀
interesting, no comments from eminent tacticians, oh well - cya!😀
P.S. - And as you apparently don't believe any of us here on RHP, it would be an interesting exercise if you'd print out this thread and greenpawn34's thread and show them to that GM that you plan to play in a simul soon. It would be interesting to hear his opinion on this matter. Go on, I dare you... I DOUBLE dare you!
(Actually, at this point, I don't see any point in wasting any more of my time on this issue. It's just a little frustrating to see someone holding such a hugely misguided notion that surely will prevent him from improving his chess game. But some people just refuse to let themselves be helped, and sometimes nothing can be done about it. Que sera, sera.)
08 Jun 08
"it would be an interesting exercise if you'd print out this
thread and greenpawn34's thread and show them to that GM
that you plan to play in a simul soon. It would be interesting to
hear his opinion on this matter. Go on, I dare you...
I DOUBLE dare you! "
I know Jacob Aagaard fairly well.
He would blame me for getting involved in a Notice Board squabble
in the first place.
I can just see him now.
"Geoff why did you bite. Why did you get involved?"
Then he would say "Don't get me involved..."
So I won't. He is far to busy.
(A good lad by the way, very approachable, not aloof in any way
at all. If your are in Glasgow on the 28th June come along.)
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34Yeah, you're right. I shouldn't have even tried pointing him in the direction of a GM. I can just see it now... someone walking up to Aagaard with computer printouts in his hand, saying, "Mr. Aagaard, can I have a few minutes of your time?" And Aagaard's thinking, "Uh oh, this can't be good..."
"it would be an interesting exercise if you'd print out this
thread and greenpawn34's thread and show them to that GM
that you plan to play in a simul soon. It would be interesting to
hear his opinion on this matter. Go on, I dare you...
I DOUBLE dare you! "
I know Jacob Aagaard fairly well.
He would blame me for getting involved in a Notice ...[text shortened]... e, not aloof in any way
at all. If your are in Glasgow on the 28th June come along.)
A thousand pardons...
08 Jun 08
I was like that 30 years ago except I in reverse.
I was tactics tactics tactics.
I was told by GM's and IM's learn positional play.
But my opponents kept falling for tricks and I kept on
winning things. Then they stopped falling for my tricks.
Would I listen NO!
I would have been a much better player and not just the
burn't out old hacker that I am now.
Too many games flying by the seat of my pants have taken their toil.
Tacticians don't last as long as positional players. But we have
much more fun.
No regrets - would do it again.
Robbie (my son)sounds like a decent enough chap - we will meet and
no doubt have a fw beers. I'll show him some games - if he will listen.
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34I'm sure Robbie will have fun at the simul. I've been to two, and they were both a very enjoyable experience.
I was like that 30 years ago except I in reverse.
I was tactics tactics tactics.
I was told by GM's and IM's learn positional play.
But my opponents kept falling for tricks and I kept on
winning things. Then they stopped falling for my tricks.
Would I listen NO!
I would have been a much better player and not just the
burn't out old hacke ...[text shortened]... - we will meet and
no doubt have a fw beers. I'll show him some games - if he will listen.
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterhe violated a GENERAL principle, seeking the initiative takes precedence over development, i bet you wont find that in any tactical books, you tacticians may want to look up initiative in a dictionary prior to posting your thoughts.😛
Your opponent violated a central tenant of chess on the third move: Never move the same piece twice during the opening.
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34Sorry, I can't take over... I'm emotionally exhausted, too.
"seeking the initiative takes precedence over development..."
Now I know this is a wind up.
Can someone else please take over...
This is no son of mine.
(Wow, disowning your own flesh and blood - how cruel can you get?)
08 Jun 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34Jaccob Agaard my dear friends is noted for what, his tactical play, or the plethora of time and effort he has invested in trying to get dummies like me to understand positional concepts, the latter I am sure you will agree.
"it would be an interesting exercise if you'd print out this
thread and greenpawn34's thread and show them to that GM
that you plan to play in a simul soon. It would be interesting to
hear his opinion on this matter. Go on, I dare you...
I DOUBLE dare you! "
I know Jacob Aagaard fairly well.
He would blame me for getting involved in a Notice ...[text shortened]... e, not aloof in any way
at all. If your are in Glasgow on the 28th June come along.)
I bet he doesn't have the tactical mantra, 'chess is 99% tactics', running through his mind every time he plays', and please sir this is not a squabble, i am sincere in this regard, and even after all the derogatory comments that have been solicited, good humoured i am sure, the question still remains unanswered, why will a study of tactics help a lower rated player in the thought process during a game of chess.
All that has been forwarded is that it will prevent him from making tactical errors and if he can recognise them in others he will punish them, well gee thanks that has really done me the world of good, i shall remember that the next time i am trying to co-ordinate my pieces, seek an initiative, formulate an over all strategical plan, look for imbalances, consider colour complexes and candidate moves and most of all, enjoy playing the game - kind regards Robbie.
08 Jun 08
2 edits
an actually it was not me who stated that seeking an initiative takes precedence over development, it was International master Alexander Bangiev, so if you want to take the issue up with him, i think he resides somewhere in Hanover, i am quite sure he will be more than happy to explain the concept.
09 Jun 08
2 edits
GMs rely heavily on strategy till late in the game against computers, as tactically, computers are far superior than any human.
On a deeper level, you could say that all strategy is tactics, as you are improving on your position with the intent to give yourself lots of advantageous tactical opportunities later.
EDIT: You can therefore see it as this. Studying tactics a great deal gives you insight into the patterns that are required to strive for strategically.
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by greenpawn34Sadly I missed Jacob Aagards lecture at the London Chess centre a few weeks ago but I heard very good things about it...his book on attacking chess is excellent (next on my reading list) and I had a look at his Fritz trainer... also seems very good...a popular trainer as well as the current British Champ...maybe you persuade him to take on a few of our top players.
"it would be an interesting exercise if you'd print out this
thread and greenpawn34's thread and show them to that GM
that you plan to play in a simul soon. It would be interesting to
hear his opinion on this matter. Go on, I dare you...
I DOUBLE dare you! "
I know Jacob Aagaard fairly well.
He would blame me for getting involved in a Notice ...[text shortened]... e, not aloof in any way
at all. If your are in Glasgow on the 28th June come along.)
09 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"why will a study of tactics help a lower rated player in the thought process during a game of chess."
Jaccob Agaard my dear friends is noted for what, his tactical play, or the plethora of time and effort he has invested in trying to get dummies like me to understand positional concepts, the latter I am sure you will agree.
I bet he doesn't have the tactical mantra, 'chess is 99% tactics', running through his mind every time he plays', and plea ...[text shortened]... complexes and candidate moves and most of all, enjoy playing the game - kind regards Robbie.
I thought I answered this in my first post in this thread by describing solving tactics puzzles as an effective training exercise by increasing the speed at which essential information (such as tactical opportunities for both sides) can be processed. This "speeding up the process of thought" is improvement.
Just like when you are driving a car for the first time many of your thoughts are directed towards engines revs, gear changes and how much steering is required and so on. With practice these thought processes become automated into what is often described as being "instinctive".. leaving the drivers mind free to concentrate on other things such as directions. The brain literally creates new pathways that are short cuts to a solution that physically require less brain activity than going the long route of conscious consideration.
This is how tactical training works. It improves pattern recognition. Patterns are speedy ways to assimilate information...imagine trying to follow road signs when is each one has a different design.
In tests GM's have proven to be able to glance at a position on the board for a couple of seconds then re-set the same position from memory. But when they are given a random set up that doesn't conform to the rules of chess...an impossible position if you like...then there performance in this test is no better than non GM's.
Tactical training brings about improvement in chess ability or to be specific: it improves rapid assimilation and processing of essential elements of the game and improves pattern recognition (in particular the pattern relating to tactics) and so brings about chess improvement. This is not really an argument in favour of tactics over strategy as there is a lot of interdependency between the two. It is also not advice that is aimed at the upper echelons of the game.
The suggestion is that tactics training is a tried and tested way to spend your time if you're looking to get better quickly. This is not to say that strategy or openings or anything else should be ignored because they are important too. It's just that tactics training make you better quicker. You seem to disagree with this. You're nuts! Sorry :-(