There's a constant dialogue about strategy vs tactics. I'm almost totally a strategy player, and when I lose, it's to tactics I didn't consider. This probably explains the huge discrepancy in my slow vs fast ratings.
To the point: I played a game recently as black where the tactics and the strategic ends were so intwined, so literally hand in hand, that I thought it might be worth pointing out how one can drive the other, and maybe more importantly, show a little how they develop together.
So like I say, this isn't meant to be an error free game - we both made mistakes. But the idea I'm hoping to show is that when you make a move, it has a strategic implication, and that leads to tactical potential. Tactics once played lead to a new strategic situation, or a clearer one anyhow, and then you can push in that direction. They are two sides of the same coin, and used together, fused into one, you win some games.
PS notice just how meaningful White's early moves are - the bishop and queen in unison taking away c7 from the black queen and forcing the pawn move, etc. That's cool.
There's a constant dialogue about strategy vs tactics. I'm almost totally a strategy player, and when I lose, it's to tactics I didn't consider. This probably explains the huge discrepancy in my slow vs fast ratings.
To the point: I played a game recently as black where the tactics and the strategic ends were so intwined, so literally hand in hand, that I thought it might be worth pointing out how one can drive the other, and maybe more importantly, show a little how they develop together.
So like I say, this isn't meant to be an error free game - we both made mistakes. But the idea I'm hoping to show is that when you make a move, it has a strategic implication, and that leads to tactical potential. Tactics once played lead to a new strategic situation, or a clearer one anyhow, and then you can push in that direction. They are two sides of the same coin, and used together, fused into one, you win some games.