12 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Restless Soullol, ok lets think for ourselves and put Mr. Shorts words of wisdom to the test. What has been your own experience chess brothers.
Nigel Short summed it up best when he said:
"Modern chess is too much concerned with things like pawn structures. Forget it -- checkmate ends the game."
Do you always wins your games by checkmate, or are there not perhaps other occasions when one wins a game due to an accumulation of material, for example in an endgame where you promote a pawn or have a piece advantage? what may be good for old Nigel may not certainly be good for us.
So what can we conclude other than that there are two methods to win a game of chess, either by a direct mating attack or by an accumulation of material, is it not so.
12 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Mad Rookperhaps the same electro-convulsive therapy may bring it to the fore!🙄
It sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't quite remember. I had shock therapy earlier today to wipe out all that tactical knowledge that was just cluttering up my mind.
I think it might be some kind of tactical principle, but I'm sure it's not important. Just forget about it like I did. 😵
12 Jun 08
Originally posted by wormwoodhi i know you are busy and therefore may not wish to reply to this request, thats ok, when you say 'something', and here i must speculate, do you perhaps mean an advantageous exchange which may not necessarily win material but leaves our opponent with say a troublesome piece, perhaps the so called, 'bad bishop', etc. or it threatens two or more strategically important square which draws on the defensive resources of our opponent to protect it etc. i am not trying to draw you into a tactical verses positional argument, just would like to define in a more concrete way what the 'something', is, any of you other guys, swiss gambit, greenpawn even mad rook, (once you have recovered), help out - thanks for taking the time
it means any kind of double (or multiple) threat. it doesn't have to even win material, just something you want and your opponent doesn't want to happen. and as you have only one move per turn, so generally speaking you can only deal with one of the threats at a time, and take the other punch in the chin.
if you're lucky, you might h ...[text shortened]... ose move available which can deal with both threats on a single move. but usually you don't.
12 Jun 08
1 edit
So in the middlegame when your opponent has just moved & you're not in check what's the first thing you go through in your thought process?
Is it:
1. Are any of my pieces or pawns open to tactical threats on my opponents next move/does he have a potential mate threat/do I have any checks, captures or forcing threats & can I gain material through tactical means?
or
2. How can I improve my position by making a solid strategic move/can I prevent improvements in my opponents position by making a prophylactic positional move?
I'm only an average club player, but I'm pretty sure everyone at my club would say 1 first then & only then consider 2
If you prioritize 2 over 1 then you are absolutely nuts.
12 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Squelchbelchi think that the question of my sanity has already been ascertained, all i need is a certificate and its legal, now can you help me understand the principle of two weaknesses, perhaps, i know its asking a lot, but could you slip in any examples, refreneces etc. that may clarify the point, and just for the record, when and IF i get better at chess im coming to get you as well!😛
So in the middlegame when your opponent has just moved & you're not in check what's the first thing you go through in your thought process?
Is it:
1. Are any of my pieces or pawns open to tactical threats on my opponents next move/does he have a potential mate threat/do I have any checks, captures or forcing threats & can I gain material through ta irst then & only then consider 2
If you prioritize 2 over 1 then you are absolutely nuts.
12 Jun 08
Originally posted by SquelchbelchThe theory that positional and tactical play are two different things is a myth. There is a difference in playing aggressive and passive however.
So in the middlegame when your opponent has just moved & you're not in check what's the first thing you go through in your thought process?
Is it:
1. Are any of my pieces or pawns open to tactical threats on my opponents next move/does he have a potential mate threat/do I have any checks, captures or forcing threats & can I gain material through ta ...[text shortened]... irst then & only then consider 2
If you prioritize 2 over 1 then you are absolutely nuts.
12 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePretty much any tactic is really based on a double attack.
...now can you help me understand the principle of two weaknesses, perhaps, i know its asking a lot, but could you slip in any examples, refreneces etc. that may clarify the point, and just for the record, when and IF i get better at chess im coming to get you as well!😛
A recent example of a game of mine where my opponent had a two weaknesses is Game 4991453 I'll also include general observations about the opening.
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e5?
In almost all variations of the Morra gambit this is incorrect. A simple threat of 5.Nf3 & 6.Bc4 with a hack on f7 via 7.Ng5 is the way to go.
5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bc4 h6?
A typical mistake by Black. Now a time-wasting 6...h6? may prevent Ng5 & one attack on f7, but it misses another thematic of the Morra - namely 7.Qb3!
This leads to 7...Qe7 (7...d5? 8.Bxd5 Qe7 9.0-0 Nf6 10.Rd1 material equal with White building a huge attack) 8.Nd5! Qd6 9.Nc7+! Qxc7 10.Bxf7+ Kd8 11.Bxg8 White is clearly dominating.
7.Qb3! Bb4?
Black seems to be trying to counter-attack from a much weaker position which seems rather pointless.
8.Bxf7+!
Material equal with Black deprived of KS cover & the right to castle
8...Kf8 9.Bh5
Threatening mate in 1.
9...Qe7 10.0-0 Bxc3?
Very dangerous opening up the a3-f8 diagonal for my dark square bishop.
11.bxc3 Nf6?
Black tries to move my Bh5 to quash the mate threat. A bad choice but to be honest I don't see much better for him.
And now I have a simple win exploiting 2 weaknesses:
12.Ba3!
The Black queen which is defending f7 is pinned & will go.
12...d6?
This just gives me another pawn because he can't take back with the other (greater) mate threat.
Game over and without a great deal of strategy.
12 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieit can be anything. anything you want OR your opponent doesn't want. it can even be something subjective, like forcing your opponent into a type of position you know he hates to play, even if it's objectively okay for him. the threat itself doesn't matter, only that there are more than one on a single move.
hi i know you are busy and therefore may not wish to reply to this request, thats ok, when you say 'something', and here i must speculate, do you perhaps mean an advantageous exchange which may not necessarily win material but leaves our opponent with say a troublesome piece, perhaps the so called, 'bad bishop', etc. or it threatens two or more strat greenpawn even mad rook, (once you have recovered), help out - thanks for taking the time
often singular threats are effective as well. especially in the opening, where you can win development moves with every threat. BUT, if the opponent has a better place for a hanging piece, attacking it as a single threat just lets he do what he'd want to do in the first place, but didn't want to spare a move for it. unnecessary checks are practically always like that.
12 Jun 08
Originally posted by Squelchbelchactually i was following this game as i was interested in what the morra gambit was, quite interesting and very well played and thanks for helping me, hasn't it (the morra gambit) been analysed to a draw (Fischer, my 60 memorable games) , anyhow that's what your opponent gets for not playing the French defence, you ol gambiteers can forget your dreams of attacking f7 period and will get outplayed with subtle positional moves, lol, im only joking !!!! please no more tactical v positional arguments, once again thanks for taking the time.
Pretty much any tactic is really based on a double attack.
A recent example of a game of mine where my opponent had a two weaknesses is Game 4991453 I'll also include general observations about the opening.
[b]1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 e5?
In almost all variations of the Morra gambit this is incorrect. A simple threat of 5.Nf3 ...[text shortened]... back with the other (greater) mate threat.
Game over and without a great deal of strategy.[/b]
12 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodthanks, this also incredible in the sense that you can play against the the actual personality of the person, now that is strategic, albeit accomplished in a tactical way - thanks dude, c ya in 2000 years when i reach 1800.
it can be anything. anything you want OR your opponent doesn't want. it can even be something subjective, like forcing your opponent into a type of position you know he hates to play, even if it's objectively okay for him. the threat itself doesn't matter, only that there are more than one on a single move.
often singular threats are ut didn't want to spare a move for it. unnecessary checks are practically always like that.
12 Jun 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobietrain tactics rigorously and 1800 will take 1½-2 years. your call. 🙂
thanks, this also incredible in the sense that you can play against the the actual personality of the person, now that is strategic, albeit accomplished in a tactical way - thanks dude, c ya in 2000 years when i reach 1800.
12 Jun 08
Originally posted by SquelchbelchI think you should make an overview of the position first (all positional factors) since these factors also help your search for tactics. Over the last year I took lessons from a GM and he wanted me to use the following method:
So in the middlegame when your opponent has just moved & you're not in check what's the first thing you go through in your thought process?
Is it:
1. Are any of my pieces or pawns open to tactical threats on my opponents next move/does he have a potential mate threat/do I have any checks, captures or forcing threats & can I gain material through ta ...[text shortened]... irst then & only then consider 2
If you prioritize 2 over 1 then you are absolutely nuts.
1. what are the positions characteristics? weaknesses/strengths, closed/open position, king safety, material balance, etc
2. map out your opponent's options
3. tactical alert (your point 1)
4. pick at least 3 candidate moves
5. calculate them all out
6. pick your move
12 Jun 08
Originally posted by schakuhrI take your point although this is a rather long-winded thought process if your opponent is about to fork your king & rook next move.
I think you should make an overview of the position first (all positional factors) since these factors also help your search for tactics. Over the last year I took lessons from a GM and he wanted me to use the following method:
1. what are the positions characteristics? weaknesses/strengths, closed/open position, king safety, material balance, etc
2. ma ...[text shortened]... your point 1)
4. pick at least 3 candidate moves
5. calculate them all out
6. pick your move
This is why Your number 3 should in fact always be number 1 in my opinion.
A GM (or you yourself) may not fall prey to a very simple one move tactic, but many of us intermediates & lower do!