Go back
Why players stuggle strategically

Why players stuggle strategically

Only Chess

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wormwood
I 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.
My definition of a blunder is a move I immediately -- or should have immediately -- reckonised as a bad move. I may make many bad moves that weaken my position, and allows my opponent to eventually exploit through 'quiet' tactics. They're not blunders, they're just bad moves. On the other hand I occasionally make a bad move that allows my opponent to exploit it with a loud tactic: one that immediately forces an immediate loss of material or a very bad position. I still call it a bad move, not a blunder, if I would have not had seen the tactic at all if my opponent did not execute it.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by bosintang
I still call it a bad move, not a blunder, if I would have not had seen the tactic at all if my opponent did not execute it.
it doesn't matter to me if my opponent catches it or not, I kick myself all the same for providing the opportunity.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wormwood
it doesn't matter to me if my opponent catches it or not, I kick myself all the same for providing the opportunity.
Oh I agree. In the case my opponent misses the shot, but I see it before he moves, it's definitely a blunder.

What I mean is that my opponent misses the tactical shot, I don't know I walked into one, but I go home and put my game through Fritz and find out my opponent missed a forced mate in four, or something like that. The move that I made that allowed that mate was not a blunder, it was a bad move. And yes, bad move or blunder, I still kick myself for it.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by !~TONY~!
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 ...[text shortened]... ch, and since tactics are MUCH more important (not slightly imo), you learn those first.
Ok, makes sense, and I agree with everything but the statement that tactics are much more important than strategy. You win 🙂.

Vote Up
Vote Down

It is important to regularly analyse through games so you can understand the thought processes of what each side was trying to do. Perhaps the thread could be enhanced if contributors gave examples of some of their own games in illustrating certain points?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.