Hm... it may be a difference in depth. A combinational player like Tal often didn't calculate everything in advance but relied on intuition to take him a long way. "Tactics" may be more about 2-3 moves things that can be calculated with precision, such as the useful down-to-Earth problems in Tactics Trainer. Maybe that is what Soltis means.
Combinations or Tactis? Beginners need not comment...
Sort:
Mar 16, 2011
0
#3
I also have no idea what Soltis means. Here's a guess.
A combination is a tactic that actually occurs in the game. A tactic could occur but could also be just a (latent) threat.
I see this all the time in annotations. "White would like to play g3 and Bg2, to place the bishop on its optimal square, but unfortunately this fails tactically to ...Nf3#"
Why can't we comment
Mar 16, 2011
0
#5
The famous Karpov Yusupov game had a lot of latent tactics in the early middlegame which enabled Karpov to reach his positional goals.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068393
Positional perspective determines the plan of battle: strengths, weaknesses, imbalances, etc. From the plan flows tactics to accomplish your positional goals, combinations are part of the tactics one may use to accomplish your goal.
hope that helps!
A tactic is a fork, or skewer, or discovered check, or what have you.
A combination is a forced sequence of moves that leads to a tactic or other positional/material gain.
Mar 16, 2011
0
#8
echecs06 wrote:
OP, if you don't know the difference , how did you get your 1800+ rating??????
I cheat ;)
Mar 16, 2011
0
#9
Some times you can learn from a beginner, so you should not be so close minded. Even a master can learn from a child.
I have no qualms learning from anyone.
Open up your mind!
Tactics are often referred to as small combinations! (S Polgar, I think!??!)
The definitions of Tactics and Strategies "overlap" meaning that the two terms can become confused.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tactics
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strategy
I do not agree that Lasker simply relied on Tactics to win rather than combinations, as though to suggest that tactics are 2 or 3 moves deep while combinations are 5 moves high, there is a strong line that was played by Lasker in the Queens Gambit that suggests he was very good at long term planning - in fact after viewing Lasker vs Steinitz games in Chessbase I found that Lasker had a passed Queenside pawn several times in the Queens Gambit lines - a sign of preparation.
p.s. It's a shame to hear that you where cheating, I put hard work into some of my CC games.
Mar 17, 2011
0
#12
Steinar wrote:
Why don't you ask him? Looks like he's a columnist for the New York Post, it should be pretty easy to track him down there and send him an e-mail.
As for me, I have no idea.
I looked around on both google and on the NYtimes website to try to find Soltis' column, but no luck. If you (or anyone) has a lead on contacting him to ask I'd love to do so...
Mar 17, 2011
0
#13
Ah, wikipedia says he's at the NYpost. It looks like he's a regular reporter there if the "Andy Soltis" that I found there is the same guy. In any case I couldn't find any contact information...
Paraphrasing Yasser Seirawan in his book on tactics, he defines combination as a mix of tactics involving a sac, in an attempt to gain an advantage. I only saw that definition today, and was a little surprised by it. I thought it was just that a combination was a chain of tactics strung together, one leading to the next.
Mar 17, 2011
0
#15
musicalhair wrote:
Paraphrasing Yasser Seirawan in his book on tactics, he defines combination as a mix of tactics involving a sac, in an attempt to gain an advantage. I only saw that definition today, and was a little surprised by it. I thought it was just that a combination was a chain of tactics strung together, one leading to the next.
Well that's interesting. If that's the true definition then that's news to me; that a combination requires a sac. I wonder it that's really true. I think I'm going to ask Jerry Silman...
Mar 18, 2011
0
#18
happyfanatic wrote:
This is what will happen
That's funny...However I've already heard back from IM Silman and he tells me that "it's a good question" and that he's going to answer it in his column in about 3 weeks. In the meantime we'll just have struggle on by ourselves :)
Mar 18, 2011
0
#19
Fezzik wrote:
To confuse things more, Botvinnik described tactics of ony a few moves in length as "petit combinations".
I can guess at what Soltis was trying to say, but in truth it's just a guess.
Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm always hearing about Capablanca's "small combinations", which to me just seem like clever tactics to improve his position or avoid disadvantage through simplification. I'm really curioius to see if IM Silman can really clear things up...
Tactical sequences of moves, usually involving captures to win material or improve the position. Combinations are not always forced, a line of play could have a possibility of a combination. Once the combination has started then it is usually a forced sequence, however special cases could involve mulitple sub-combinations - such a combination has variations or branches.
(no I am not on the phone to Silman lol)
The question is simple but the answer not obvious...
What is the difference between a "combinational player" and a "tactical player"?
I'll frame the question for you as follows. I'm reading a good book, for about the 4th time called "Why Lasker Matters?" by Andrew Soltis (Batsford 2005). In this book Soltis makes a central observation that despite the fact that many modern grandmasters don't appreciate Lasker's playing strength or "preparation" he contributed to the game in some very basic ways that are still among the most influencial approaches to playing even amongst todays strongest GMs.
Here's the passage that got me thinking about the title of this post:
"What is truly typical of Lasker is that he relied on tactics, not combinations. There's a difference (soltis doesn't say what this difference is!). He persued his goals with the help of tactics, often just two or three moves deep, in much the same manner as Sammy Reshevsky, Anatoly Karpov and Peter Leko."
As a moderately strong player (USCF ~2000) I struggle to really understand the real difference between the terms. To me the difference seems more a question of degree than technique. I'd appreciate thoughts, especially from stronger players. Fish ;), while I appreciate your curiousity I'd appreciate if you'd watch and learn more than muddy the waters with guessing...