pfren wrote:
One of the two is one of the masterpieces of chess literature. I will let you guess which one.
Will you let me know if he is right or wrong when he makes his first guess...That sounds like an interesting book...
Modern chess strategy by Pachman or Secrets of modern strategy by John Watson
Sort:
Ooo ooo ooo pachman is the classic three volume not lame abriged! did I win?
Secrets of modern chess strategy.
@ Pfren
I don't want to start a debate, but I do have a question that is debatable. From you personal experience as both a player and an observer/student of this game, would you say that it is better to play chess using a positional defensive approach or a more forceful, attacking approach?
If you are willing to answer and put up with others who might want to try to argue, could you also tell me why you think what you do about the answer to that question?
pfren wrote:
IMO there is no such discrimination. All chess games combine positional and tactical elements, which have to be applied at the proper doses, and the proper timing if you want to win.
The way these things are applied isn't always objective, sometimes a player can change the ingredients of the recipe a little bit. But I'm afraid I cannot tell you which your playing style actually is without looking at several of your serious games.
I can recall some thirty five years ago, when I had a few brief courses with IM Pavlos Gesos. He looked at a few of the games I have played at the finals of the Greek Junior championship- mostly mad dog attacks with a lot of tactics, and he told me "your actual style is purely positional, you have to work on that direction".
After 35 years, I can safely say that Pavlos (still a very good friend of mine) was absolutely right.
That is pretty much what my intuition tells me also about trying to pick one type as better. I have seen someone type in the forums that positional play is for people who can't calculate the more difficult sharp,open games, so they hide on their side of the board.
On some level I give certain merit to that, but on the other hand my motto is, if I can beat you, does it really matter how I achieve it? For me the final answer is that I just want to win, however I have to do it.
I feel like I am at a point in my development that I am literally deciding how I want to play this game, more so than, just playing the way it seems I am forced to.That is how I used to feel.
I am certain that Rybka will always say there is a best move, but I second guess if its line is what I should play(maybe not good for humans), often probably not. I am realizing that I often have a few options, so I am trying to figure out what I should do. I don't don't like random strategies. I find even if I play the same opening over and over, I can change from game to game how I want to attack and defend, etc.
I find it interesting that a good player was able to study you in games where you were very aggressive, yet he was able to see you are a positional player. I too prefer positional play and closed games. I will admit, they seem less stressful to manage and I enjoy the piece coordination and the strategy. I find open games are so tactical, its almost not even fun. I don't have time to enjoy anything, I am just too busy calculating and scrambling to make sure I am atleast even .
This is why I became interested in you posts about the books. I am looking to enrich my knowledge and style to help me improve, in every way I should. I don't necessarily want to be one dimensional, but I would rather play as best that I can. Do you recommend me working on my open games so that I am not weak, even though I prefer positional play?
Modern chess strategy by Pachman or Secrets of modern strategy by John Watson which book is better?