Chess tactics is not brilliant it's a mistake ???

I am speechless.

Tactical player: Oh year, the sicilian dragon! I can make an exchange sacrifice, which gives me alot of dynamic compensation!!! Oh wait, my opponent mated me! Next game! Yes, a Kings Gambit....

Positional player: A Nimzo-Indian. Hmm... Oh wait, I'll trade my good bishop for his bad, so he doesn't have the bishop pair, and I'll have a good knight versus a slightly worse bishop. Now I got slightly more space on the kingside. I can make an interesting exchange sacrifice! Wait, then he'll have slight counterplay on the queenside, I'll close that first. Yes, it's closed. I'll make the sacrifice. Mate! Next game. Oh wait, a kings indian. I'll play the fianchetto system...

The idea of strategy is to gain tactics which favours you.

¨Tactics flow from a superior position¨ Fisher

Those last two lines contain as much distilled wisdom as you'll find in so few words.

Similarly, the thing about tactics for an expert player is not so much that he'll blow you off the board (though he may) but that he will reach a position where the win is just a technical exercise for him. You might get mated, or you might just reach a position where your pawn majority is blocked but his is free, and you have a bad Bishop against his good Knight. It comes down to the same thing in the end as far as the expert's concerned - what Nimzowitch called an "automatic positional win".

The guy who said "Chess is 99% tactics" must be a loser?!

he's unbeaten in well over 80 years, in fact.

Hi everybody!

Its very interesting theme for me. I am quite new person in chess, started to play in 25, and now I am 26, and I am already playing about a year, so have noticed some things. My play is 90% tactics and only 10% strategy, usually I sacrifize piece or even two for the iniciative and attack, and the chekmate is follow, or I loose the game if the combination was incorrect. Some people said that its incorrect to play in such a style, cause chess is based on a deep theory and strategy, but I dont study theory just play how I feel in direct moment :) And that is the point. Doesnt matter what opening you playing, you should feel it. So the tactics is weapon, BUT all ideas you need to create in your head, you cant just learn them, they come during the game

if you only study strategy you won't move beyond beginner level, you have to be able to see tactics as well. It is not one without the other, they are interconnected.

I think some people miss the true balance in human play of strategy and tactics....

anyone who thinks that their tactical levels rival that of engines who primarily only play for tactics, is either very mistaken or an undiscovered prodigy....

....most of the undiscovered tactical prodigies here at Chess.com are banned for engine use....

sounds like a GM, must be good!

i wonder too they are so fun and sometimes can be amazingly pretty..

People resent tactics for two reasons....they regularly miss them whether it is on offense or defense... and simply aren't good at executing plans to put themselves into position to have the opportunity for them...

...so they get irritated by people who seem to put down others for their lack of ability, while relishing their success publicly...

Maybe he thought you were too forward ....

lol

too forward isn't even a member.

Agree, if you get really bad position in the opening, you simply could not survive till the middle game when usually all tactics happen. Wanna show one example of my own game, this is tactic in my way of thinking

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=460654608

I just have some(about 8) memorised openings until 4 steps which I use to dictate the complexion of play (I dont know their names) . My game has 50% strategy for opening and 20% of it for rest of the game.I usually exchange pieces on three conditions , prioritised as follows 1.piece value,2. planned attacks , 3.when i have a slight piece advantage i go for many exchanges so the no. of pieces of both my opponent and me reduce and that advantage of extra piece comes into play, 3.(same priority) good bishop and bad bishops and the situation in game ( for eg. I would rather have 2 rooks and a knight than two rooks and a bishop or I would rather have two bishops against 2 of his knights.). For me it is more important in chess that you are more proactive than reactive. You should use strategy to get to good positions in start of game and use those positions for getting grip of the match later on in the game using tactics.

Chess without tactics might as well be checkers. Mostly kidding of course, but that's all chess is, is tactics.

Chess is quite a bit strategy. In fact, normally almost all of the opening is strategy. Apart from the exchanges and mate, most of the other moves are strategical and not tactical. You could be great at tactics, but not so good at strategy and GM's would destroy you.