24 Jan 06
Originally posted by bassoRead positional books.
OK, I'm kinda new to the study of chess, though I've been playing for a few years. I understand how to study tactics and endgames, but how to study "positional basics, and pawn structures, square strategy"? Thanks.
Art of positional play was one i read and can recommened. It is hard to read though for the average player.
24 Jan 06
Originally posted by RahimKYes, he was out-played positionaly, and lost to a tactic. My point exactly
Check out my chess lessons. Kasp vs Petrosian. Petrosian and Kasp are both positional genius but it is the tactics which made Petrosian lose not positional skill. Have a go at the tactic puzzles at the end.
24 Jan 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterHow was that your point? You said you barely need tactics if u play positionally.
Yes, he was out-played positionaly, and lost to a tactic. My point exactly
As I said before, you can play a good positional game, but you miss one tactic and it's night night.
Anyway, Kasparov- Petrosian was hardly beginner chess.
24 Jan 06
Originally posted by welsharnieYou seem to have it in for me. Are you arguing to argue, or just because you like to annoy me?
How was that your point? You said you barely need tactics if u play positionally.
As I said before, you can play a good positional game, but you miss one tactic and it's night night.
Anyway, Kasparov- Petrosian was hardly beginner chess.
My point is, learn the GAME! not TACTICS,TACTICS,TACTICS.
My analogy of the one time 1200, who was taking care of the tactical hustler, obviously learned how to defend by use of positional rules.
Sure beginners need to learn tactics. Analysis of many master games, will enrich your chess understanding more then a few puzzle books.
Learn why that sac worked, and why it wasnt a good idea to sac, where that actual puzzle in the book came frome, and how the player worked to get to that position, where they could make a mate in whatever.
There are many Experts who never make Master, because they only know TACTICS, TACTICS, TACTICS
24 Jan 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterI am arguing as I felt that at first you were trying to say you could escape without learning many tactics. From the rest of your replies, it appears you were just emphasising that there is more to learning chess than tactics. That I agree with, however I also believe that for people beginning chess, a firm base in tactics is the most important thing, as this is where most games are won and lost for beginners, and even people better than beginners.
You seem to have it in for me. Are you arguing to argue, or just because you like to annoy me?
My point is, learn the GAME! not TACTICS,TACTICS,TACTICS.
My analogy of the one time 1200, who was taking care of the tactical hustler, obviously learned how to defend by use of positional rules.
Sure beginners need to learn tactics. Analysis of many maste ...[text shortened]...
There are many Experts who never make Master, because they only know TACTICS, TACTICS, TACTICS
Yes, everything else must also be learnt, but to a lesser extreme. Once the player reaches a decent standard though playing to understand chess better, then endgames and positional play comes to the fore, as this then usually makes the difference form an average player to a good player.
24 Jan 06
Originally posted by welsharnieIt seems like that, huh? gee, i got crushed, it must be cause i suck at tactics.
I am arguing as I felt that at first you were trying to say you could escape without learning many tactics. From the rest of your replies, it appears you were just emphasising that there is more to learning chess than tactics. That I agree with, however I also believe that for people beginning chess, a firm base in tactics is the most important thing, as ...[text shortened]... to the fore, as this then usually makes the difference form an average player to a good player.
I know many strong players right now, who didnt have a clue what a tactic was. They played lots of tournament chess against higher rated players, and learned this way, or took lessons from a teacher, who taught some tactics, but mostly fundamentals.
Why did you get crushed? well, lets look at the game...
Hmm...seems like you made very poor developing moves, created weak targets, and squares for you opponent. and they took avantage of that, and tactics flowed for them.
What is tactics? maybe theres a misunderstood on that?
is it sacfifices? A forced series of moves to make your opponent relent?
a tactic could be a move that the other player has to respond to, and give up initive, or make bad moves, and compromise their position.
If one where to know the foundation of good chess, then they would be able to win on the basis of their knowledge.
Not because reinfeld showed you a queen sacrifice, or a mate in 1
25 Jan 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterYou seem to be missing the point. The thread is tips for BEGINNERS. These are my thoughts on the subject.
It seems like that, huh? gee, i got crushed, it must be cause i suck at tactics.
I know many strong players right now, who didnt have a clue what a tactic was. They played lots of tournament chess against higher rated players, and learned this way, or took lessons from a teacher, who taught some tactics, but mostly fundamentals.
Why did you get crushe ...[text shortened]... the basis of their knowledge.
Not because reinfeld showed you a queen sacrifice, or a mate in 1
* Beginners dont usually lose to positional play, they will usually succomb to a tactic (missing a fork, a simple combination to win material etcetera) well before their bad pawn formation or badly placed piece results in a lost position.
* This implies that the best way for a beginner to improve is to avoid making these mistakes, so studies tactics, as well as the basics of the rest of the game.
* Once they improve and can play through a game without hanging pieces to simple combinations, and force their opponent to beat them rather than them simply losing (become an intermediate player), then (in my humble opinion) they can start seriously studying positional play, and will now know enough about the game to appreciate this fully.
25 Jan 06
Originally posted by welsharnieThis knowldge i got from Masters and grandmaster, and tons of chess books.
You seem to be missing the point. The thread is tips for BEGINNERS. These are my thoughts on the subject.
* Beginners dont usually lose to positional play, they will usually succomb to a tactic (missing a fork, a simple combination to win material etcetera) well before their bad pawn formation or badly placed piece results in a lost position.
* This ...[text shortened]... usly studying positional play, and will now know enough about the game to appreciate this fully.
Where do you get your information?
The net is littered with Tactic crazy players. Only masters, know how to use the pieces.
25 Jan 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterI got my knowledge from IM's and FM's, who are also very good coaches. In addition to this, I also have experience assisting in the coaching of young players, and so have seen how many different youngsters have improved under different coaching environments.
This knowldge i got from Masters and grandmaster, and tons of chess books.
Where do you get your information?
The net is littered with Tactic crazy players. Only masters, know how to use the pieces.
Yes, masters know how to use the pieces, but the average person does not go from beginner to master in one step. They do not learn and improve the same way throughout their careers. This is my point.
I'd like to see what other peoples opinions on this are too... so if anyone else want to join in the debate, please feel free...
25 Jan 06
Originally posted by welsharnieAh, that's my que.
I got my knowledge from IM's and FM's, who are also very good coaches. In addition to this, I also have experience assisting in the coaching of young players, and so have seen how many different youngsters have improved under different coaching environments.
Yes, masters know how to use the pieces, but the average person does not go from beginner to ma ...[text shortened]... opinions on this are too... so if anyone else want to join in the debate, please feel free...
Beginners- learn how the pieces move, general stragegy and then study tactics
Intermediete- learn endgames, stragegy positional play
Advanced/master - positional play and more endgames.
How Can get from beginner to master without studying tactics.
How would you know what a fork, pin , etc is if you don't study tactics?
Positional play is great and I read 2 books on it already but for beginners around 1400 and below you win because of blunders and tactics, not because your opponent positionally crushed you.
25 Jan 06
Originally posted by RahimKPositional play could be, get your pieces out, connect your rooks, dont move you queen out early, or move the same piece 2x. etc. These are basic ideas. Next-Learn endgames, then middle game (including tactics) and last, openings.
Ah, that's my que.
Beginners- learn how the pieces move, general stragegy and then study tactics
Intermediete- learn endgames, stragegy positional play
Advanced/master - positional play and more endgames.
How Can get from beginner to master without studying tactics.
How would you know what a fork, pin , etc is if you don't study tactics?
Po ...[text shortened]... w you win because of blunders and tactics, not because your opponent positionally crushed you.
A player should learn how not to get crushed, before they learn how to play like morphy, or tal.
The russians teach endgames first, this is considered positional.
Elemenrary tactics can be figured out, pins, etc. My point is pick up a good endgame book, before some tactics book
25 Jan 06
Originally posted by GrandmousterTo me that get your pieces out and connect your rooks is general stuff which every person should learn first. I don't consider this positional stuff. To me positional stuff is when a bishop is good, knights are good in such positions, control of key squares etc... That is positional to me.
Positional play could be, get your pieces out, connect your rooks, dont move you queen out early, or move the same piece 2x. etc. These are basic ideas. Next-Learn endgames, then middle game (including tactics) and last, openings.
A player should learn how not to get crushed, before they learn how to play like morphy, or tal.
The russians teach endgam ...[text shortened]... can be figured out, pins, etc. My point is pick up a good endgame book, before some tactics book
Endgames are important but I don't think they should come before tactics. What good is having brillant endgame knowledge if the game never reaches the endgame. If you don't know your tactics, a person could crush you in the middlegame and the endgame wouldn't matter since you would either resign, or his material would be so much that he would mate you, or even if he plays a bad endgame he still won't lose because he has so much material.
I'm talking about beginners and players around 1400 in my posts. Why else would all the Gm's and all time greats tell students to study tactics? Chess is 99% tactics. You remeber that saying? I'm sure everyone has heard it.