As I understand it, tension just means setting problems for your opponent. For example in a KID black is geared for a king side attack, both you and your opponent know it, but white has the problem to solve, how to deal with it correctly?
Fischer exceeded in technical play. So you can think of it as setting them technical problems to solve. Bad structure, worse minor pieces, space, something like this. Just because the problem is well defined doesn't mean it's any easier to solve.
Capablanca was: "this endgame is better for me"
Opponent "ORLY?"
Capablanca: "yarly"
And 20 moves later his opponent resigns.
Hello again,
I don't intend on spamming, but I was curious, again. Arthur Bisguier said that Fischer needed tension, that he deplored positions without counterplay. Kramnik also said that Fischer played very vigorous chess, much like Kasparov would play later on. However, I've also heard that Fischer always sought clarity in his positions. My fundamental problem is that I'm not quite sure of how clear positions have tension. For example, when I think of clear positions, I think of Capablanca, and when I think of Capablanca, I don't think of tension. I wanted some examples from his games, if that's not too much to ask. This will be the LAST question for today :)
Thanks,
Chessman1504