Well I'll try my best!
I got off to a flier when I started & went up 2 1425 or so after first 10 or 12 games. Then I started getting dellusions of grandeur & started quaffing red wine whilst playing. I made some rash moves. I lost some games. Hence the rating slippage.
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I pretty much agree with everything you said. a clear example of the decisiveness of tactics is the fact that engines do so well against humans, with pretty much pure tactical power. very good human players might be able to win engines with strategical play, but most of us will be demolished even if the search depth is limited.
Also, I don't think strategy matters as much as tactics does...
I believe strategical knowledge is practical/statistical knowledge about search depths we can't access with calculation. it's not absolute knowledge like tactics, but more like a set of 'rules of a thumb'. heuristics. tested in thousands of battles, and found out to give good results even if it's not guaranteed. and the counter-examples which break those strategic rules are called tactics. - were there an infinitely powerful engine calculating the lines, strategy and tactics would become one.
Any IM you ask will tell you that you shouldn't trade down to a bishop of opposite colour endgame when you have a superior position. Any 2000 player is going to know strategy, if they truly are playing at 2000. Strategy is just as important as tactics. Any strong player knows that they need understanding of both strategy and tactics to win a game. Sure a 1400 player can play tactically, and win, but tactics should be the reason for forcing the player to play a certain line, and not trying to fool a beginner into walking into a knight fork. You must play the position, forcing your will upon it tends to allow the opponent to get an advantage. If you have a position where you can trade off a knight for bishop, you need to know strategy to know if it would be a good trade. Trading a good knight for a bad bishop is foolish, and without strategy you would not know this.
It's a well known and documented fact, at least to most of the chess playing population that good tactical vision is much harder to aquire than basic positional and strategic sense.
With this in mind then we can safely say that the author of this thread is talking nothing more than banal drivel. I can only wonder that if they spent more time concentrating on improvimg their play and less on drafting up these meaningless forum postings their rating may just improve a little.
Originally posted by power moverFirst of all, if this is a well known fact, it has been missed by me. But I am not so interested in discussing that.
It's a well known and documented fact, at least to most of the chess playing population that good tactical vision is much harder to aquire than basic positional and strategic sense.
With this in mind then we can safely say that the author of this thread is talking nothing more than banal drivel. I can only wonder that if they spent more time concentrat ...[text shortened]... nd less on drafting up these meaningless forum postings their rating may just improve a little.
It goes without saying that all of us have better things to do than posting to Internet discussion forums. We'd all play better chess if we studied chess during the time we ordinarily spend reading and writing on these forums. In the time it took you to write what you wrote, you could have worked a few mate in 2 puzzles and made some minor improvement to your chess. I'm not criticizing how you use your time, because we all use our time for less than optimal activities.
But what I really want to ask about, is why such an insulting tone? Of course you're not the only one to do it, but why do you insult the person who started this thread? I am honestly curious about how people like you think. Do you feel smarter by convincing yourself that others are stupid? Has this person done something to you to get on your s--- list? Is this how you interact with friends, coworkers, family on a regular basis?
Am I now due an insult for asking this question?
Originally posted by cmsMasterYou have not offered core advise or any examples of games. Real chess improvement can only come when you learn to assess a position.
A question of the topic of strategy and positional chess. Players can learn to stop dropping pieces, and they can learn to find nice combinations. But when it comes to positional understanding and any strategic ability they seem to suffer. Most players after hitting 1600 claim to have no problems (or little) with tactics, combinations, and simply not dropping pieces, but have a severe lack of positional and strategical chess. Why is this? .......
- Opening systems have deep strategic ideas. However the practice of memorizing or consulting opening books etc erodes this.
- Check out a few games/good books on middlegames
- Tactics is all about executing an already achieved advantage to gain material or achieve mate.
- Strategy is about manouvering to obtain a better position which can be tactically exploited.
- Most players below 1600 do not understand what happens when you go pawngrabbing instead of development with your Queen in a "loneranger" crusade. A book on all round chess development is more important than just studying tactics or strategy in isolation.
Game 2044222 See what hapens to his Queen
Ok, My veiw is far more simple.
For a start, I don't consider tactics only as a means to win material and/or mate kings.
In fact, I would consider a 3-move sequence which ends with you with a passed pawn in the middle game and excellent TACTICAL combination.
the only reason that it may be considered "strategical" is because the wrath of that pawn will only be felt in an incalculable amount of moves.
IMO, Stratedy is simply knowledge, Knowing that wing pawns are harder to win with, knowing that If you have the oppisition (in some endgames) you will win, etc ........stratgedy is simply knowing the "rules" of war, tactics are the cavalry charges.
Originally posted by ShinidokiThen why would you say players suffer and how should they improve. Give examples from your own games.
Ok, My veiw is far more simple.
... Stratedy is simply knowledge, Knowing that wing pawns are harder to win with, knowing that If you have the oppisition (in some endgames) you will win, etc ........stratgedy is simply knowing the "rules" of war, tactics are the cavalry charges.