tactics - not as important as thought

If you are a good Blitz player (= you can keep up with players that are otherwise in long OTB games better than you) - chances are that your tactic-skill is similar like the tactic-skill of those "better" long OTB players.

Why?

Blitz is mainly about tactics. Probably shallow tactics, but I am not even sure this is true. (Likely: if you are good in shallow 2-3 mover tactics - chances are high you are similarly good in longer 5-6 move tactics, too. I mean compared to others. For all of us --> the deeper the more difficult it gets).

But long OTB games can be much less about tactics.

Chess isnt 99% tactics. It is about 70% simple tactics, 10% difficult tactics, and the rest is rules with some half.

You can get away full games without possessing strong tactics. This is totally different to what the common believe is. However, I am proof myself: my blitz abilities are poor, but I am 300-400 fide elo points better if the time control is long enough. 

And I now how I do it: I avoid tactics. Having said that, we can not avoid simple tactics. 2-3 moves are needed to check here and there, but really, it is simple most of the time.  And we can avoid too difficult tactics if we play carefully.

Thomasz is a chess player who is totally different to me:

His boardvision skills are better than mine, and we did some blitz matches and I lost like 20 to 5 against him. Nevertheless, he is just a 1800 fide elo player, while I am more 2200 fide elo.

His chesstempo-Blitz tactics are a little bit worse than mine. Didnt I say Blitz is mostly about tactics? Why am I then so poor in Blitz if my chesstempo-Blitz tactics are even a bit better than Thomasz´s chesstempo-Blitz-rating?

Well, the truth is, that chesstempo-Blitz tactics are not so shallow as most tactics in Blitz are. At CT Blitz of 1800++ you get quite some difficult ones, which you rather find in a puzzle only because you know it is a puzzle, plus these puzzles often have solving times above 1 min - hardly something we can call "Blitz", can we? Otherwise, in a real Blitz game, you less likely find these difficult tactics (unless they are highly pattern driven, but those are seldom in the 1800++ - ranges).

So what do we need to play better OTB?

Really, I strongly believe it is a good opening repertoire where you know how to play the openings a bit in the middle game, too. These must be openings which arent too sharp, cause we dont want tactics. We want an advantage through "better knowledge" about the position.

In my next post I give an example.

Here a calm opening:

I recognize the name "Thomasz" as the guy who often commented in Temposchlucker's blog.

Is he a member at chess.com as well? I would like to invite him in this group.

------

You have made me think about our last 2 (rook ending) games. You had white, so drawing with black with a strange looking setup like b6 was ok for me. Indeed I could not find the complications. Maybe there is a cut off point in the common Tiger belief that one should play highly tactical against titleholders. Being at 2250 now and with the white pieces should I play highly tactical against an IM? Maybe not, since the IM is only 150 points better. Maybe against a GM I still should play tactical. I remember GM Ivan Sokolov saying (2650 player) that he simply cannot win with black when a 2450+ players decides he wants a draw.

Maybe if I wanted, I could force draws with the white pieces against IM's. Sure would be dull games. But the more advanced I become, the more different I see chess. I used to find the Carlsbed structure dull as black, and to drawish. But it is the most played pawn structure in all Worldchampionship matches. I viewed some Kasparov movies in CBT today on the Carlsbed system and there are plenty of resources for black as well. My point is that dullness might be very ok for black (or white). First of all, you don't get a disadvantage. Equalizing with black is already a good thing. When you view GMs a 100 years ago. They didn't go for modern (anti-centre) systems.

They all played e4-e5 and d4-d5. Establishing presence in the center with a pawn, developing minor pieces towards the center, struggle in the middle game, wait for a tiny mistake, then a long ending with a lot of manouvring.

100 years ago, they all played turtle games.

Another thought....

Maybe we should study chess in reverse. Everybody studies openings right? But in the opening there are many pieces and infinite move orders. In the ending there are a few pieces, and technique in the ending (thus 1 good move or 1 great plan) can win or draw you the game. So studying endgames and getting towards endings seems more fruitfull then studying openings right?

Then turteling your way in a dull game with black, but equal game, is a darn good strategy, you just win after 80 moves.

I am looking with black at 2 systems:

Against d4, the QG declined / orthodox (d5+e6) Stockfish 8 finds the best defence for black! SF8 sometimes go for a Nimzo-Indian start with Nf6+e6 and later d5.

Against e4 just e5. I simply do not get why the Spanish would be that great? SF8 also equalizes with black in many ways.

I think center-pawn openings require you to learn a lot of theory. This is because if you play 1...d5 (for instance), then you have given your opponent a "target". Not that this target means anything. Of course it doesnt. However, it is giving him the opportunity to home prepare with a lot of theory. 

How much harder is it to prepare against 1.Nf3 -->? It is so difficult to cook something up against it, that black players are usually out of book as soon as move 1. 

Of course they have seen 1.Nf3 before. But still - they dont know if I am going to play:

a) 2.g3

b) 2.c4

c) 2.d4

d) 3.e3

So black dutch players, who play against 1.d4 f5, they "try" 

1...f5

They hardly dont know anything though. after 1.d4 they learned maybe the Staunton-Gambit. But after 1.Nf3 f5 really, the black player already is thinking "let´s see what he plays?" - he has no clue. Actually, he is out of book here, and only will be back in book if white plays 2.d4

But if white doesnt?

Munich, for instance, plays 

2.d3

"Puh! hm, I am out of book. But the center hasnt formed, so nothing serious. I dont need to have learnt theory here. If there is no center pawn, there is nothing 'to bite' on, right?"

So here most black players are out of book. The general thinking is, that if there is nothing in reach to attack, then there is no theory.

This is probably the main reason why I win so often in this opening after

2...Nf6

Black players think "I simply follow the  usual set-up for dutch".

However, if you look carfully at this diagram, then there is something white can "bite on", because black has given a "target":

Well, there a lot of ways to look at chess. Actually I see c4 as a target!

1 d4, d5

2 c4?!. e6

You could also reason that d5 is NOT the target, but actually c4 is! When I play QG as white, I always have to mind dxc4 from black. Sometimes black just takes that pawn, defends, and is a pawn up in the endgame.

3 cxd5, exd5

So the pawn structure is fixed, white does not have to worry about dxc4. But now we have an interesting struggle ahead. White goes for the minority attack, while black goes for the kingside attack.

c4 is a target,yes. However, this isnt the point in the least! Dont get mixed up. I mean a structure that is fixed. A distinguishing mark. Something for orientation. A direction. something to clintch to. A structural feature. Something that has high recognition value. 

It can be easily prepared. Even a 1700 Fide elo player who plays with white against you the following 3 moves (because he is in book and he is sure about it.):

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 - even such a 1700 player will play the next 3 moves like a Super-GM, most of the time.

However, if you had started like this:

1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 - you will get to the same position after 3...d5.

Still, I think it is better, because you will not get

1.d4 d5 2.e4?! (Blackmar Diemer) - and your opponent is in his so much loved Diember-gambit book (prepared with Stockfish 8, invested 100 hours into analysing the complications), and he still plays good moves when you get to move 10 - but you will be out of book after move 4, because you will only know the 3 main variations of the Blackmar Diemer gambit, but not his unsound variation, which only he know what is unsound about it.

The "target" issue is not that the target as such is something you should not have. Instead - you can have "targets", but the thing is: your opponents have an easy life during the opening stage.

If you dont give such "traces" of high recognition value (targets), you will have a hard time yourself, too. However, you avoid theory.

Look, if you are a good player and the other is weaker (which is often the case, I bet), then it is not good if you are both still in "book" at move 10. Instead, it is much better if the fight starts early. Not only are you soon on your own, but (more importantly) - he will be on his own, too.

I dont mind orthodox, but I dont think you should reach it with 1...d5, unless you intend to give your opponents an easy life in the opening.

Instead, reach it with transposition. know some subtle lines when your opponent tries too hard getting into a normal declined queensgambit.

I have traps like that a lot - people who try to get into a known opening by transposition - and then they get my special variation. Please look at this opening move order:

I get your point. You have nicely mapped out the most convenient path to face different openings by a smart move order. But the example you give works for you, it is custom made to your personal style and preferences.

I have to find the smartest move order to stick with my preferences.

What they are? I do not know yet.

Yes, you need to find your own way. Just be aware, that everybody who plays 1.d4 will have looked at 1...d5 for sure. (the same holds true to 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6).

Edit: but it happens to me, that quite a few 1800 players dont know anything after 1.Nf3 - they are out of book here, but are not really aware of that. After 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4  - a lot of players have a deep think, indicating they are absolutely not knowing what to play here. They try OTB to get (with transposition) into known waters. This, however, is pretty late.

Here an example of me (white) getting it wrong. Transpositions are dangerous!