Samuel Reshevsky said "We often hear the terms "positional" and "tactical" used as opposites. But this is as wrong as to consider a painting's composition unrelated to its subject. The business of the chess player is to conceive practical objectives and to plan and carry out the maneuvers necessary to achieve them; the objectives, the plans, the maneuvers---all must be based on the possibilities inherent in actual positions. Thus chess is by definition positional. Tactical play is concerned with the immediate details of executing the maneuvers necessary to the success of the plan and the attainment of the objective."
Since chess is by nature positional, should we not study positions? Yes, unlike tactics positions can be repeated. There are characteristics in every position. Week squares, open lines, poorly defended king, badly placed piece and many more -- these are called positional themes. A chess player needs to recognize them and know how to use them to plan logically. It has bee known for hundreds of years that a positional advantage is a prerequisite for a successful attack.
To give thought to a chess position is not easy and requires time. It is hard work yet, the work put in will reward you time and time again. So how does one start? Well Jacob Aagaard gives us some insight on this when he said " One of the main defects in our thinking which we have rid ourselves of so that chess positions can open themselves up to us in all their glory, is a forcing way of thinking. This is closely linked to assumptions and thus also to blundering. To think outside the box is basically what unforcing thinking is all about. It is to solve the problems in a concrete fashion. It is never knowing for sure that you have found the best move before you have gone really deeply into a position."
So I will post a position on Monday and you have all week to study the given position and discuss it as well. I do this in the hope that we can learn and gain knowledge that will help us in our games. This not just moving a piece for one should explain why they are making said move/s as well. It the explanation of move/s that goes to knowledge.
It may be that one does not know how to proceed for one might be use to solving this position the way one would solve a tactical problem. Yet this is different than tactics. So I will give some guidance. A chess player is always faced with a question when it comes to positions. What shall I do in this position? Before we can intelligently answer that question we need to ask ourselves How is this position to be evaluated? There are five questions that help us in our evaluation and they are:
1. Am I ahead, behind, or evven in material?
2. Are my Pawns well placed and how do they compare with my opponent's?
3. How much freedom of action do my pieces have, and is my degree of mobility greater than my opponent's?
4. are the Kings safe or exposed to attack?
5. What is the threat?
Once these are answered we can evaluate the position as superior, equal, or inferior, form plans and proceed accordingly.
Samuel Reshevsky said "We often hear the terms "positional" and "tactical" used as opposites. But this is as wrong as to consider a painting's composition unrelated to its subject. The business of the chess player is to conceive practical objectives and to plan and carry out the maneuvers necessary to achieve them; the objectives, the plans, the maneuvers---all must be based on the possibilities inherent in actual positions. Thus chess is by definition positional. Tactical play is concerned with the immediate details of executing the maneuvers necessary to the success of the plan and the attainment of the objective."
Since chess is by nature positional, should we not study positions? Yes, unlike tactics positions can be repeated. There are characteristics in every position. Week squares, open lines, poorly defended king, badly placed piece and many more -- these are called positional themes. A chess player needs to recognize them and know how to use them to plan logically. It has bee known for hundreds of years that a positional advantage is a prerequisite for a successful attack.
To give thought to a chess position is not easy and requires time. It is hard work yet, the work put in will reward you time and time again. So how does one start? Well Jacob Aagaard gives us some insight on this when he said " One of the main defects in our thinking which we have rid ourselves of so that chess positions can open themselves up to us in all their glory, is a forcing way of thinking. This is closely linked to assumptions and thus also to blundering. To think outside the box is basically what unforcing thinking is all about. It is to solve the problems in a concrete fashion. It is never knowing for sure that you have found the best move before you have gone really deeply into a position."
So I will post a position on Monday and you have all week to study the given position and discuss it as well. I do this in the hope that we can learn and gain knowledge that will help us in our games. This not just moving a piece for one should explain why they are making said move/s as well. It the explanation of move/s that goes to knowledge.
It may be that one does not know how to proceed for one might be use to solving this position the way one would solve a tactical problem. Yet this is different than tactics. So I will give some guidance. A chess player is always faced with a question when it comes to positions. What shall I do in this position? Before we can intelligently answer that question we need to ask ourselves How is this position to be evaluated? There are five questions that help us in our evaluation and they are:
1. Am I ahead, behind, or evven in material?
2. Are my Pawns well placed and how do they compare with my opponent's?
3. How much freedom of action do my pieces have, and is my degree of mobility greater than my opponent's?
4. are the Kings safe or exposed to attack?
5. What is the threat?
Once these are answered we can evaluate the position as superior, equal, or inferior, form plans and proceed accordingly.