27 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Eladarsun tzu predates bombardment by over 2000 years. and developing your pieces, getting superior local presence, attacking where you're strong and the enemy weak are all most definitely pages from sun tzu's book. the last one literally. you almost never have evenly matched forces on the board. the only exception is a dead draw.
No, it is different for both.
In war there is such a thing as strategic bombing. This is where you attempt to knock out your opponent's ability to wage war, be it though bombing factories, population centers or transportation systems.
There's no way a chess strategy can be used to such an end. There is no way to create war material in chess. There is ct where two forces are evenly matched. In military terms, you would only be using tactics.
and you can create war material: pawns turn into pieces when they reach the 8th rank.
27 Dec 09
Those are all tactics, not strategy. Strategy is overall war development. Tactics has to do with how you win battles.
In chess tactics has to do with winning material or checkmating an opponent. Even though the same words are used, the meaning behind the words are totally different.
27 Dec 09
3 edits
Originally posted by EladarI think that if I put in the work after a while it wouldn't be work any more. It would have become second nature. I don't have to get out a piece of paper and a pencil to calculate whether a trade is in my favor using the 1-3-3-5-9 model. As it is I am good at analyzing but I have to think a lot to put it into practice and I am extraordinarily lazy. 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration does not favor the guy who dislikes the perspiration!
If my memory is correct, he did have a much higher rating, but he didn't like the amount of work it took to keep that rating.
Somehow some people can achieve that level and higher without putting forth a great amount of mental anguish.
In fact there is an addictive thrill at seeing something you read about or thought about in the abstract (e.g. Nimzowich's outposts) and seeing it in game and seeing it decide the game. I imagine it's like exercise; once you've put in a certain amount of work you get used to it and better at it and the addictive pleasures start coming more often.
Not that I know from experience...😉
27 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarI don't think so.
Those are all tactics, not strategy. Strategy is overall war development. Tactics has to do with how you win battles.
In chess tactics has to do with winning material or checkmating an opponent. Even though the same words are used, the meaning behind the words are totally different.
Allied strategy in WWII was to use the material advantage they had, trading pieces until endgame. No? Axis strategy was to play extremely aggressively, exploiting their positional advantage to force Allied moves and defeat them before the superior Allied material could be brought into play.
Basically, the Axis had the position that arises immediately after a questionable and very aggressive gambit.
27 Dec 09
Allied strategy in WWII was to use the material advantage they had, trading pieces until endgame. No?
Not exactly what chess players would call strategy. Strategy has to do with weak squares and putting rooks on open files. It is looking for a good move when there is no tactic available.
Trading off material when a pawn up doesn't exactly fall in the same category.
27 Dec 09
Originally posted by Eladarequal weak squares to weak spots, and both are a target in chess and war, equal putting the rook on the open files to using the correct "tool" for the correct purpose and the same happens.
[b]Allied strategy in WWII was to use the material advantage they had, trading pieces until endgame. No?
Not exactly what chess players would call strategy. Strategy has to do with weak squares and putting rooks on open files. It is looking for a good move when there is no tactic available.
Trading off material when a pawn up doesn't exactly fall in the same category.[/b]
Of course you have to go round the words and understand the true meaning within to grasp this
27 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Eladarif you don't see simplification when up in material as chess strategy, you should think about it until you do. it's THE strategy in that situation. weak squares and rooks on the other hand are NOT a strategy, but positional elements, which can be used to implement either tactics OR a strategy.
[b]Allied strategy in WWII was to use the material advantage they had, trading pieces until endgame. No?
Not exactly what chess players would call strategy. Strategy has to do with weak squares and putting rooks on open files. It is looking for a good move when there is no tactic available.
Trading off material when a pawn up doesn't exactly fall in the same category.[/b]
maybe this misunderstanding is the heart of why lower rated players screw up positional play so often? thinking that doubling pawns, getting outposts, rooks on the open lines etc. would automatically mean a strategy, a winning plan has appeared, when they've really just observing a positional element on the board with no real use in itself.
28 Dec 09
Originally posted by Eladarit's about a year since the last episode of our 'my way' vs 'your way' debate, right? the last time I said you'll get nowhere with your attitude. take an honest look at your position and see if I was right. then do something about it.
If you don't see trading down when up on material as strategy, then think about until you do.
Hog wash.
No use in going around in circles with this kind of attitude.
Have a good time pretending to be a general and pretending that chess is in any way war.
preferably something else than getting mad at people who are trying to help you.
28 Dec 09
Originally posted by EladarThe state CC champ here is 2300CC - 1800 OTB
I'm not continuing the debate, you are.
Let's see how long it can go without you bringing it up again, "Mr. I'm a great correspondance player, but not so hot otb/timed game guy".
And those are regulated by the CSCA and USCF, they are well modded and looked at.
28 Dec 09
Originally posted by EladarStrategic bombing = Rook on the 7th, eating Pawns and putting pressure on the King. Uncontested Rook on 7th = uncontested air superiority.
No, it is different for both.
In war there is such a thing as strategic bombing. This is where you attempt to knock out your opponent's ability to wage war, be it though bombing factories, population centers or transportation systems.
There's no way a chess strategy can be used to such an end. There is no way to create war material in chess. There is ...[text shortened]... ct where two forces are evenly matched. In military terms, you would only be using tactics.
?