My level of knowledge is much lower than who is being talked about here. But I will say that it is not just the openings that are important, but knowing how to get into middle game. When you speak about positional and tactical play are you referring to playing through the opening as a plan or strategy for the entire game? Can you change from positional to tactical in the middle of the game or will you be lost with a player of same strength or greater?
Let me try to clarify. When the first openings are made by the players, at what point do you say….”I can beat him with positional play”, or “I can beat him with tactical play” Is it better to just play what the position calls for?
Mike
Originally posted by rapalla7I see no clear delination between the principles in the opening and the middle game; the most important element in chess is putting your pieces where they are most mobile as this is where they have the most influence and power on the board. There is a neverending debate about whether "tactics" or "position" are most important but to me, I agree with Stenitz(?) that effective tactics flow from strong position. You always have to be on the lookout for tactical threats, both potential ones of your own and of your opponent, but if your position is sound it is more likely that you will have effective threats and tactics than your opponent if his pieces are placed so that their mobility is limited.
My level of knowledge is much lower than who is being talked about here. But I will say that it is not just the openings that are important, but knowing how to get into middle game. When you speak about positional and tactical play are you referring to playing through the opening as a plan or strategy for the entire game? Can you change from positional t ...[text shortened]... n beat him with tactical play” Is it better to just play what the position calls for?
Mike
I would say they both go hand in hand. Like themaster37 said, if you have good position then tactics will appear more often. But in order to achieve a good solid position, you may have to use tactics, (i.e. forcing your opponent to double a pawn or ruin his pawn defense around then king.) Then that superior position will open up more devastating tactics.
Ok, about the 3 games in question:
The game against Gimbitzoid, honestly, how many of you saw Ne6!? Not too many I'm willing to bet, would you expect such a move from a 1380 rated player (at the time I played him), probably not. . . 1380 rated players normally don't make moves like that.
The game against chilli. Funny how No1 claims I lost due to position, when I fell for an elementary Cambridge Springs TACTIC. The CS is a TACTICAL OPENING. Anyways, I learned a lot from that game in question, beleive it or not, I never saw the CS despite all my d4 playing until that game. I looked it up by using a queen's gambit book in the library, and now I know the only way to block that early queen development pin TACTIC is to block with the knight, so now I do that. The CS, on the surface, breaks all the rules imaginable for development and the opening, it is strictly a good defense VIA TACTICS IN THE OPENING.
As for the game against Makiev, I beat him before with the black peices, so it was probably phycology thinking I could get a fast win. A lot of ppl don't think you can do kingside attacks with the queen's gambit, but Frank Marshall sure did and what I used was a Marshall like wild idea, ie: not castling at all and doing a wing attack against early black castleling. To tell you the truth, I have no idea how he can win doing that despite analyzing tons of his games, because whenever I try it, it's my own king that ends up dying, normally to knight maneuvering like this game, or the attack is simply too easy to defend against. I used to do this kinda aggressive attacking when I played chess 15 years ago as a 9 year old with great success ( I quit chess then for 10 years and only got back into it 6 months ago), although now, with a crummy 1300 rating at first and countless games of attacking and finding no mate using this Marshall idea, I changed my style from attacker to defender and my rating improved 300 pts as a result.
Originally posted by mateuloseA) What tactic are you talking about in the CS? And you lost for positional reasons i.e. you didn't castle, develop your rook and allowed the game to be opened when your opponent had superior development:
Ok, about the 3 games in question:
The game against Gimbitzoid, honestly, how many of you saw Ne6!? Not too many I'm willing to bet, would you expect such a move from a 1380 rated player (at the time I played him), probably not. . . 1 ...[text shortened]... m attacker to defender and my rating improved 300 pts as a result.
B) Read the Fischer quote above;
C) You didn't see Nxe6 but he did. It was only possible because you went pawn grabbing. Lesson: Don't go pawn grabbing when your King is still unprotected. And believe it or not, lower rated players than you can make good moves - as you found out. If you leave yourself wide open again, another lower rated player will do the same thing. Learn your lesson; stop being so arrogant.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe CS threatens to win material ASAP if you do not block with the knight, that is the tactics behind it.
A) What tactic are you talking about in the CS? And you lost for positional reasons i.e. you didn't castle, develop your rook and allowed the game to be opened when your opponent had superior development:
B) Read the Fischer quote above;
C) You didn't see Nxe6 but he did. It was only possible because you went pawn grabbing. Lesson: Don't go pawn ...[text shortened]... n, another lower rated player will do the same thing. Learn your lesson; stop being so arrogant.
Anyways, telling me I lose because of position when it's obvious tactics are killing me is futile. Sorry, if this sounds arrogant, but I know my openings, it's obvious many of my opponents simply do not and are too LAZY to learn them, therefore I, according to the GM's, have the better position.
Originally posted by mateuloseWhat are you talking about? Block what with the Knight in the CS? Your Knights are developed BEFORE they're are any threats. And "if you know your openings" why did you vary from the book on your move7 and make an obviously inferior move as shown from the database figures I cited? Your opponent KNEW the opening; you did not. I suggest you actually go back over and read what I wrote in my analysis.
Anyways, telling me I lose because of position when it's obvious tactics are killing me is futile. Sorry, if this sounds arrogant, but I know my openings, it's obvious many of my opponents simply do not and are too LAZY to learn them, therefore I, according to the GM's, have the better position.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe CS is tactical, it threatens to win material with an early Qa5, and I fell for it, that's what I mean.
What are you talking about? Block what with the Knight in the CS? Your Knights are developed BEFORE they're are any threats. And "if you know your openings" why did you vary from the book on your move7 and make an obviously inferior move as shown from the database figures I cited? Your opponent KNEW the opening; you did not. I suggest you actually go back over and read what I wrote in my analysis.
Originally posted by mateuloseI beginning to think you don't know anything about chess at all. What do you study for 4 hours a day? According to that definition, virtually every opening is tactical; the Lopez, the Nimzo and many others pin the Knights and threaten to win pawns. The fact is you didn't know what move to play on move 7 in the Cambridge Springs. Worse than that, you didn't and still don't, understand the idea behind the variation. What material can Black win with Qa5? It attacks a protected Knight and a protected pawn. Even after your poor 7th move, simply playing 8 cxd5 would have avoided any loss of material. You overlooked that a3 did NOT prevent Bb4 which cost you material BECAUSE you allowed Ne4 by not playing Nd2. Simple.
The CS is tactical, it threatens to win material with an early Qa5, and I fell for it, that's what I mean.
Originally posted by mateuloseTactical opening or not, your mistakes in the game were around not developing and not understanding the basic goals of openings - smooth development and piece activity.
The CS is tactical, it threatens to win material with an early Qa5, and I fell for it, that's what I mean.
Actually it seems from these games that understanding piece activity is a serious problem for you - you dismiss it as 'tactics' and don't try and work out why opportunities arise for your opponents but not for you. I used to get whipped by a guy in park chess in Washington whose motto is 'no loafers' - if a piece isn't working for you or is sulking on its own, either make it work as a team player or kill it. Has been great advice to live by.
Another point is stop trying to justify your crap moves - we all make huge mistakes. You have a very strong player giving you really good advice, and instead of trying to understand what he's saying and how you can eliminate the thinking that led you to make those mistakes, you seem to be dismissing everything. Some people pay very good money for teaching that is far worse than No.1's analyses, so shut up and learn.
Originally posted by mateuloseI am not LAZY, I work very hard in studying chess, i spend about two hours a day on chess. Just because i dont study openings that does not mean i dont study chess, theres a lot more to chess than just openings. And RHP ratings mean nothing, i tend to play quickly on RHP and my true chess ability, as is true for a lot of people on RHP is much higher than rating would suggest.
Anyways, telling me I lose because of position when it's obvious tactics are killing me is futile. Sorry, if this sounds arrogant, but I know my openings, it's obvious many of my opponents simply do not and are too LAZY to learn them, therefore I, according to the GM's, have the better position.
Originally posted by mateuloseI think one should think of tactics as cashing out a positional dividend. Another point you may be missing is positional play not only creates tactical shots but also prevents tactical shots from becoming available.
Anyways, telling me I lose because of position when it's obvious tactics are killing me is futile. Sorry, if this sounds arrogant, but I know my openings, it's obvious many of my opponents simply do not and are too LAZY to learn them, therefore I, according to the GM's, have the better position.
As a d4 player you should be aware that black's plan is to completely own e4 (hence the 3 most common replies d5, nf6, f5). Not only is e4 a gateway into the white position, as you discovered, but it freezes the white center in place. Having the center congested makes it difficult for the white peices to support the queenside expansion theme common to d4 openings. Knowing this one can see the true purpose of 6...Qa5 is to take away the one defender of e4. Qc2 does not acknowledge the e4 weakness and therefore does not address Qa6, a move abounding in positional, not tactical, motives. Before Qc2 no tactics were available. After 7. Nd2, the positional weakness is closed and there are still no tactics available.
I have no doubt that you know many opening moves but in light of this mistake I find it unlikely that you have 'learned' any d4 systems and am therefore not suprised that you often loose to tactics.
Mateulose, you might want to consider showing a bit of gratitude toward Marauder for all this free chess coaching he's giving you. His style may be a bit abrasive (the Mike Keenan of chess coaches, LOL) but he's been doing an excellent job giving you thorough feedback. Don't fight against it, and don't justify arguments that disempower you by placing the causes of your defeats in the actions of your opponents.
In a sense, chess games are never won, they are only lost. Whoever makes the most errors (or the most critical error) is, generally speaking, the loser. The other side just mops up, or takes advantage of the errors (and this is true even in the case of the winning side taking an early initiative -- he only succeeds if the defender defends erroneously). If both sides play without error the result is a draw. So faulting our opponent for our losses is illogical. It's the psychological equivalent of not assuming responsibility for our lives because we're still resentful towards others who we believe failed us or let us down.
Take responsibility for your defeats in chess, and you take a step in life toward taking responsibility for misfortunes and lack of success, which is the road to empowerment. Everything is connected!
-- Meta