10 Jan 08
Originally posted by ih8sensSome do. Some don't. The concept of strong and weak squares are hard to boil down to tactics. Ns vs Bs as well. Even structural features. Put more simply, tactics are the things you look for when there's something active to do. Positional play is required when there isn't.
Game 4429715
Move 15. e5
Would you call that positional in that it opened up a file or tactical in that, despite being a totally unsound waste of a pawn, black is forced to make several hard decisions?
That's what I'm getting at... all positional plays (okay, most) have a tactical element to them and vice versa.
10 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ih8sensIf that is your conclusion then wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "chess is half tactics and half positional considerations"? Because there is a description I could agree with.
... all positional plays (okay, most) have a tactical element to them and vice versa.
10 Jan 08
I think that tactics are generally made possible by positional considerations: pieces undefended or inadequately defended, king safety neglected, control of key lines or squares permitting forks, checks, skewers, pins, and so forth. I think it's much easier to find tactics when one understands the positional requirements for them, instead of testing (mentally or on an analysis board) random moves. Similarly, when one understands the positional requirements for tactics, they are much easier to avoid and defend against.
Unfortunately I have shown a regrettable tendency to "look for moves" instead of trying to first come to grips with reading the board, and then letting this dictate my plans, which in turn allow me to calculate tactics to carry out those plans.
10 Jan 08
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsHere's another thought: tactics you can find because of well-honed tactical ability. But its positional ability that creates the conditions necessary for tactics to be found. No doubt they are related, yet they are also somewhat distinct from one another.
I think that tactics are generally made possible by positional considerations: pieces undefended or inadequately defended, king safety neglected, control of key lines or squares permitting forks, checks, skewers, pins, and so forth. I think it's much easier to find tactics when one understands the positional requirements for them, instead of testing (me ...[text shortened]... this dictate my plans, which in turn allow me to calculate tactics to carry out those plans.
11 Jan 08
3 edits
Originally posted by scandiumI think this discussion about tactics vs. positional understanding should include the rating parameter.
Here's another thought: tactics you can find because of well-honed tactical ability. But its positional ability that creates the conditions necessary for tactics to be found. No doubt they are related, yet they are also somewhat distinct from one another.
I agree with Mark Adkins, but I (and probably many 1600- players)lose because of "tactics from nowhere" all the time (in OTB play). I'm sure as one gets to 1800+, since neiter side hardly ever blunders, tactics begin to "come from somewhere" a lot more often than nowhere. that means, the role of positional understanding increases according to tactical play. especially in GM games, they are actually battles of finding the right and more realistic plan. it becomes more and more logical, of course in a higher tactical level, but because the blunder rate of all GMs are so small, the fight is actually about positional understanding, opening repertuare and endgame techniqe.
I hope I could make my point. 🙂
11 Jan 08
2 edits
Originally posted by diskamylWithout assigning exact numbers (these are place holders only) it probably works something like this:
I think this discussion about tactics vs. positional understanding should include the rating parameter.
I agree with Mark Adkins, but I (and probably many 1600- players)lose because of "tactics from nowhere" [b]all the time (in OTB play). I'm sure as one gets to 1800+, since neiter side hardly ever blunders, tactics begin to "come from somewhere" a ...[text shortened]... nderstanding, opening repertuare and endgame techniqe.
I hope I could make my point. 🙂[/b]
U1200 Game is decided by magnitude and quantity of blunders exclusively. Openings, tactics, endgames are moot.
1200-1400 Gross blunders still play a huge roll but elementary opening and tactical play begin to appear as well. No real strategic play. Endgames too are largely meaningless.
1400-1600 Fewer serious blunders. Play becomes more tactical, though probably more of the one move tactical shot variety. Elementary strategic ideas appear and simple end game concepts may begin to become understood.
1600-1800 Few serious blunders. Play is tactical and more strategic elements are involved. Endgames become more important now as more and more frequently roughly equal endings are reached where knowledge of how to win or draw is crucial.
1800 and up: I wish I knew as I'm not there yet 🙂
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by ih8sensIsnt 3. d4 just a mistake?
Game 4429715
Move 15. e5
Would you call that positional in that it opened up a file or tactical in that, despite being a totally unsound waste of a pawn, black is forced to make several hard decisions?
That's what I'm getting at... all positional plays (okay, most) have a tactical element to them and vice versa.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6!? 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5!
And black has a very nice sveshnikov because the knight can't hop to b5.
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by scandiumonly 3 losses and your rating shows no sign of stabilizing, so maybe you're doing everything right? ask again when you have a real problem. 🙂
seriously though, you can't go wrong with analysing your losses. figure out why you lost it, and work on that area.
I'd skip the books, at least until you have a clear well defined target area you need to work with. go for the books when you need something from them, instead of trying to make up reasons for reading them, which is plain procrastination.
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by scandiumThis is a good selection of books for a player of your rating/ability. I'd recommend you read My System, Art of Attack and then Zurich 1953, followed by Capablanca's Best Chess Endings. If you go through these books, you will learn something about the game and doubtless improve your rating. In any event, you should go through these books anyway since they are all classics and very instructive.
These are mostly Middle Game & Endgame books as I buy very few opening books. Some of them I've read before, but none of them in years.
The Art of the Checkmate
The Art of Combinations
The Art of the Middle Game
The Art of Attack
Chess Tactics for the Tournament Player
Winning Chess Tactics
How to Become a Deadly Chess Tactician
Zurich 1953
Capab ...[text shortened]... ndgame Course
I've left some off that are either Opening Books or too basic to be useful.
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by wormwood4 losses now. Game 4431036
only 3 losses and your rating shows no sign of stabilizing, so maybe you're doing everything right? ask again when you have a real problem. 🙂
seriously though, you can't go wrong with analysing your losses. figure out why you lost it, and work on that area.
I'd skip the books, at least until you have a clear well defined target area you need t ...[text shortened]... them, instead of trying to make up reasons for reading them, which is plain procrastination.
The thing about that one was after he made an inaccuracy that allowed the Greek Gift I was sure I had it in the bag. After 16...Kh8 I decided to retreat the B, a pawn up, rather than continue the attack as I couldn't see any clear mating attack there while he'd get good counter-play to limit my options with a Bb7-Qc6 battery. He later compelled the exchange of Qs leading to a level ending where my plus pawn wasn't so important, and I became so focused on trying to lift my Rs and put them on the h file that I just lost the thread. When I got up this morning I looked at the game for 5 seconds before making the move that allowed him to fork my Rs. Just terrible play on my part. And that backward d pawn was a PITA.
So, in light of that disaster, I've decided I also need to get my thinking in order again and start exercising some disciplined thinking process. This is what I intend to do there, as PM'd to someone else here (this is a copy/paste of my PM):
Its a checklist that, on each and every one of your moves consists of asking yourself the following:
1. What does my opponents last move threaten?
2. Does his threat need to be addressed on my move? If it does, will my move do so?
3. Are any of my pieces loose or hanging now?
4. Does he have any checks, discoveries, or tactical shots?
5. Do I have any tactical shots based on loose pieces, overloaded pieces, pinned pieces, or back rank weaknesses?
6. Will my move hang a piece its protecting, allow a check I can't meet, or put the piece en prise?
The important thing is to run through that list every time you move. You only need to forget to do it once to blunder and lose the game (as, ironically, I just did). A good thought process is to first look at his move and question 1. Then the first part of question 2. Write that threat down and if it needs to be met. Now look at the remaining points and make a note of any observations you see there. Then begin looking for candidate moves and write them down. Look even at candidates that don't seem to address his threat since you may find a stronger one. Candidate moves should be considered on the following rough list of priorities:
1. They meet or parry my opponents threat.
2. They create a threat stronger than his.
3. They setup or initiate a tactical shot.
4. They improve my position, or weaken his, through prophylaxis.
5. They activate, or improve, the position of an inactive piece.
Now is where you rank the candidate moves using the second 5 step list while comparing each move to each point on the first list. Example: you see can't see your opponents last move as creating any real threat. Looking over the board you see none of your pieces are hanging or loose and you see no criteria for creating a tactical shot So points 1-5 are covered on list 1 and you begin creating a list of candidates with the second list in mind. After the list is complete you run them through the first list (the blunder check list) to eliminate the bad moves, rank what's left of them on the second, and then play your move.
11 Jan 08
To clarify a bit, the first list is a basic blunder check list. Its an aid in systematically going over the board to determine his threats, possible tactical shots of his and yours, and a final step to check to eliminate candidates that hang material. The second part of the list is also a disciplined approach to looking for candidate moves that serve a point and ranking them based on what they accomplish while comparing them to list 1 to ensure they don't blunder. The second list is basically aimed at making sure you play every move with a purpose rather than finding yourself drifting from move to move with no real idea as to why you're playing the moves you are.
The upshot is that all this notation makes a good framework for post-game analysis as well, so going forward I'll start analyzing my games with the aid of these notes I've created in game.
But I still feel I need to read something just to get some outside inspiration into my games. Whether its tactical ideas, positional understanding, or improving my endgame, ultimately I feel I need to make some headway in these areas if I'm to make another major jump on the improvement ladder. And plus I have all of these highly esteened chess literary works just collecting dust on my book shelf.
11 Jan 08
On that list of mine, any volunteers to add input on streamlining/condensing it further (or adding in anything I missed)? I think I have here a good, if a little rough, disciplined candidate search methodology that should pay dividends if put into practice rigorously. It just needs to maybe be distilled into something that flows a little better. And even if its a bit time and labour intensive, what better format than CC to use it in.
11 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThese are good suggestions. My System, in particular, has been calling to me for a while. As has Zurich 1953. The Art of Attack is pretty intense, even more so as I posses the older descriptive edition. I think that's something I'd need to work up to in order to get the most out of it. Capablanca is one of my favourite players but I've resisted reading that book on his endgame play mainly because I just don't think my endgame understanding is sufficient to really gain much out of it. Also his dry style hits a little close to home as I have to resist emulating it (my natural tendency is not to take risks in chess) because I don't have that endgame ability to grind small advantages into wins after early exchanges. And I lack the positional understanding of exactly when, in an almost level position, to simplify and convert that slight edge into a win.
This is a good selection of books for a player of your rating/ability. I'd recommend you read My System, Art of Attack and then Zurich 1953, followed by Capablanca's Best Chess Endings. If you go through these books, you will learn something about the game and doubtless improve your rating. In any event, you should go through these books anyway since they are all classics and very instructive.
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by scandiumMost coaches would tell you that you need to balance you weekly training schedule between all the different study areas. I've seen percentage break downs before, which show something like the following:
These are good suggestions. My System, in particular, has been calling to me for a while. As has Zurich 1953. The Art of Attack is pretty intense, even more so as I posses the older descriptive edition.
Tactics: 40%
Endgame: 20%
Openings: 20%
Strategy :20%
The reason I'm mentioning this hear is because you don't have to just study one book at a time. I study chess in the park during my lunch breaks. So I'll alternate between two or three different books.
The Art of Attack is one of the candidates for my Chess Book Club post, if you're interested...
11 Jan 08
Originally posted by scandiumThen it's all settled -- you need to study the Capablanca book since, as you say:
...Capablanca is one of my favourite players but I've resisted reading that book on his endgame play mainly because I just don't think my endgame understanding is sufficient to really gain much out of it. Also his dry style hits a little close to home as I have to resist emulating it (my natural tendency is not to take risks in chess) because I don't have t ...[text shortened]... actly when, in an almost level position, to simplify and convert that slight edge into a win.
* Your endgame understanding is insufficient.
* You don't have the ability to grind small advantages into wins after exchanges.
* You lack the positional understanding of exactly when, in an almost level position, to simplify and convert that slight edge into a win.
There's no magic bullet to becoming a good chess player. It requires constant practice, self-evaluation and study. I'll share one of the best things I learned from Capablanca: Don't study your wins -- study only your losses so you can figure out your mistake, then don't make the same mistake again. The point of this applies in all sport, whether it be football, tennis or chess: eradicate your weaknesses. If you're weak in the endgame, then learn the endgame. If you're weak in winning a won game, then learn how to win a won game (Smyslov was excellent at this phase of the game, by the way). If you're weak in positional evaluation then learn positional evaluation. None of this is easy, but you can take heart in the fact that all good chess players (except possibly Capablanca and Morphy) have had to go through this process. Good luck.