16 Aug 06
You are not going to pull off a combination unless your opponent has a weakness in his position that will allow it. You start off thinking strategy and watch for opportunities to execute a combination at every move because a winning combination may pop up as a result of an opponent’s error even in a strategically inferior position.
At lower levels, tactical blunders happen with increasing frequency as you move down in rating. Once you hit 1800 or so, serious tactical errors are going to be rare. Even if they drop a P or the exchange don’t expect them to roll over and die. If they don’t make any serious errors, you’re probably going to have to beat them in the ending which is a whole new problem.
You want to beat below 1800, sharpen your tactics. You want to beat above 1800, you have to be good at both tactics and strategy AND have some endgame technique.
16 Aug 06
Originally posted by z00twhy players suffer? -- I'm not sure I understand the question. suffer what?
Then why would you say players suffer and how should they improve. Give examples from your own games.
How you should improve? - simple, play games, Practice tactical puzzles, and learn the 'rules of engagement' (i.e Opisite colour bishop endgames often drawn, N+N+KvsK is drawn whereas N+N+K vs K+P is winable)
that combined with a little opening knowledge and endgame theory should take you quite far.
oh where you asking something a little more specific?
Examples?
examples of what?
16 Aug 06
2 edits
strategy is GOALS = WHAT & WHERE (eg, Q/side vs middle vs K/side - light squares vs dark sqaures, &tc.)
tactics is HOW to go about acheiving those goals
or so I think of it
As to the WHY of it (re OP's orig question), I believe it's because things tactical are more immediate & because most of us actually have little to no GRAND strategy. Much of our play is reactionary, in response to what we think the other side is doing/aiming for = more of that short-term tactical response type play, as opposed to sticking to a BASIC strategy, whatever it may be.
16 Aug 06
Originally posted by !~TONY~!I'd add: lines that "attempt" to force an advantage for one side - just because my tactics don't always work - but they are still tactics!
No, tactics are basically forced lines that lead to a win for one side, such as a fork that wins a piece or a rook sacrifice that forces mate. Strategy is basically everything else that has to do with middlegame play. Creating weaknesses, controlling files, finding the best squares for your pieces to all work together, creating plans and carrying them out. ...[text shortened]... of what you are supposed to be doing. I suppose even conjuring up attacks is a strategic topic.
16 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by techsouthI find this thread interesting, constructive and chess related so I'm grateful that someone thought to start it.
First 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 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 t ds, coworkers, family on a regular basis?
Am I now due an insult for asking this question?
Taking some time to think though what stategy and tactics are, has been one of the pleasures of learning chess and one that I can also apply to other areas of life.
I'm also relatively new to forums (anywhere) and find myself sometimes being annoyed by the abuse posted. I have to presume that it's part of the fun for the perpetrators. Whilst some of it is clever I hope to get used to it and learn to ignore it.
You could say that my instinct is to make a tactical response and counter with an abusive post but my stategic considerations suggest that ignoring is preferable. It's down to taste as well. Maybe in a couple of months I'll be desensitised and flaming with the best/worst of them.
But for now I support poilte posts, humour and chess interest.
17 Aug 06
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Strategy MAY be slightly less important than tactics, but it's still and integral part of chess. Your response is solid and makes sense, but ignores some of my original question. Most importantly, why not study tactics AND strategy early on to gain the benefits that both of them offer?
Also, I don't think strategy matters as much as tactics does. I think if you took two people and trained one only in tactics and one only in strategy, the tactics guy would win almost 100% of the time. You can probably just be a tactical beast and have a very crappy knowledge of strategy and still be about a 2000 ELO player. I know people like it. They know ...[text shortened]... This post was way too long and poorly written, but it's 1:30, and I am not changing it.
17 Aug 06
Originally posted by cmsMasterI did briefly touch on it. You can't begin to comprehend what you need to do to outplay someone if you can't stop dropping pieces. I think it's a huge experience thing. One day you just read up on strategy and it just clicks. But before that, I think it's just hard to enough to make sure what you are playing doesn't lose, let alone if it's any good. You know? You wouldn't start telling a total beginner about why the two bishops are an advantage and how to plan around them if they hang one before they can do anything. It's just all too much, and since tactics are MUCH more important (not slightly imo), you learn those first.
Strategy MAY be slightly less important than tactics, but it's still and integral part of chess. Your response is solid and makes sense, but ignores some of my original question. Most importantly, why not study tactics AND strategy early on to gain the benefits that both of them offer?
17 Aug 06
3 edits
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Tony sort of beat me to it here.
I did briefly touch on it. You can't begin to comprehend what you need to do to outplay someone if you can't stop dropping pieces. I think it's a huge experience thing. One day you just read up on strategy and it just clicks. But before that, I think it's just hard to enough to make sure what you are playing doesn't lose, let alone if it's any good. You kno ch, and since tactics are MUCH more important (not slightly imo), you learn those first.
It's not that tactical chess is more important than positional chess -- I think in reality they are quite integral with each other -- however it's a lot more difficult to learn tactics.
Positional chess can be learned much more intuitively. You can have other people analyse your games and you can follow other annotated games. While playing correspondence chess, you can follow popular opening lines as you play, using databases and opening books.
When you read a comment like '10. Rae1! Rooks are powerful when they control open files.' You can internalise that quite quickly. It doesn't take much practice before you start 'seeing' open files.
However you would have to study a ridiculous amount of games before you could begin to internalise something like: '14. Qxd5? Black responded 14....Bxf7! and black has a discovered attack on white's queen!' You read a comment like that, you might think oh I understand that, but you won't "really" understand it until you practice and practice it until you can do it by yourself.
What I'm getting at is that you can learn to 'see' positions with some coaching and experience, but when it comes to 'seeing' tactics, there is no substitute for hard, critical practice, because of the calculation involved.
Positional chess is like reading an interesting book, you will learn facts as you read, and as you forget them and want to learn more, you can keep re-reading the book or find new books to read. Tactical chess is like studying math. You just can't read math problems. To understand them you have to actually calculate them yourself, and to get good at them you really need to practice and practice.
17 Aug 06
2 edits
One more thing: I noticed many people use the term tactical 'blunders', but I think this is depreciative towards the skills of the winning player. When I started studying tactics heavily, I realised that so many tactical shots really come out of nowhere. Some of the puzzles in my tactics books I studied took me weeks to solve, and even now I'm certainly not foolproof against them. If I walk into them, it might be because I blundered, but its just as likely, or more so, that my opponent tactically outplayed me.
17 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bosintangwell, I look at it this way: if I make a move that creates an advantageous tactic for my opponent, it's a blunder. but if he drives me into it against my will (that's strategy if anything), I see the train coming but just can't get out of it's way, I feel I've been outplayed. the former is my error, the latter my opponent playing better chess compared to me.
One more thing: I noticed many people use the term tactical 'blunders', but I think this is depreciative towards the skills of the winning player. When I started studying tactics heavily, I realised that so many tactical shots really come out of nowhere. Some of the puzzles in my tactics books I studied took me weeks to solve.
the deeper the tactic, the smaller the blunder though.
17 Aug 06
Originally posted by wormwoodI follow you, but when you see the train a 'comin', but you're trapped, you're not about to be the victim of a tactic, you already are the victim of a tactic!
well, I look at it this way: if I make a move that creates an advantageous tactic for my opponent, it's a blunder. but if he drives me into it against my will (that's strategy if anything), I see the train coming but just can't get out of it's way, I feel I've been outplayed. the former is my error, the latter my opponent playing better chess compared to me.
the deeper the tactic, the smaller the blunder though.
17 Aug 06
Originally posted by bosintangI guess you could say that, but I feel more like a victim of strategy there. I guess the difference is a bit semantic. after all, there's no clear difference/boundary between calculable and incalculable positions.
I follow you, but when you see the train a 'comin', but you're trapped, you're not about to be the victim of a tactic, you already are the victim of a tactic!