J.Murakami, made my case, those two games he posted result in miss tactics or mishandle the attack; even among GMs tactics are important and its even more among amateurs level.
Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play. Why Bother?
Sort:
yureesystem wrote:
... even among GMs tactics are important and its even more among amateurs level.
Is anyone here arguing that tactics are not important among GMs and not even more important among amateurs?
JMurakami wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
J.Murakami, made my case, those two games he posted result in miss tactics or mishandle the attack; even among GMs tactics are important and its even more among amateurs level.
Chess is mostly solved by tactics. However, it matters the preparation, both before the game and during it so that the pieces are where they have to be. So, saying those games were decided by missed tactics or mishandling the attack is over simplification. Both Geller and Keres knew how to calculate, attack and defend as the best; it's just that they both fell into inferiority due to inaccuracies, and all their tactic abilities couldn't revert the situation.
--------
PS: Bronstein said he couldn't calculate 14.Bxh6 up to a clear position, but thought that the piece activity based on the Nf5 more than compensated the material, based on his experience with the Spanish. Back in 1955, that was as obscure as it gets (piece activity wasn't a concept used in western books). I recall more than a dozen annotators calling it a "positional sacrifice", hehe.
You are too strong to understand that amateurs play really bad, what good is it to get a won position and you don't know how to win it; because you can't attack or you really bad in tactics. How many players in this forum can win the game from Geller vs,Keres, after 18.Bxh6!, its not so easy and most would choke it. Studying tactics for a low rated amateurs does more good than harm, he practice the art of calculating and visualize positions in his mind, and I say about 95% here don't understand positional at all, they talk about the importance of positional skills but they don't implement any sound positional concepts in their games.
Oct 20, 2017
0
#325
yureesystem wrote:
JMurakami wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
J.Murakami, made my case, those two games he posted result in miss tactics or mishandle the attack; even among GMs tactics are important and its even more among amateurs level.
Chess is mostly solved by tactics. However, it matters the preparation, both before the game and during it so that the pieces are where they have to be. So, saying those games were decided by missed tactics or mishandling the attack is over simplification. Both Geller and Keres knew how to calculate, attack and defend as the best; it's just that they both fell into inferiority due to inaccuracies, and all their tactic abilities couldn't revert the situation.
--------
PS: Bronstein said he couldn't calculate 14.Bxh6 up to a clear position, but thought that the piece activity based on the Nf5 more than compensated the material, based on his experience with the Spanish. Back in 1955, that was as obscure as it gets (piece activity wasn't a concept used in western books). I recall more than a dozen annotators calling it a "positional sacrifice", hehe.
You are too strong to understand that amateurs play really bad, what good is it to get a won position and you don't know how to win it; because you can't attack or you really bad in tactics. How many players in this forum can win the game from Geller vs,Keres, after 18.Bxh6!, its not so easy and most would choke it. Studying tactics for a low rated amateurs does more good than harm, he practice the art of calculating and visualize positions in his mind, and I say about 95% here don't understand positional at all, they talk about the importance of positional skills but they don't implement any sound positional concepts in their games.
Tried to look up Geller vs Keres because my interest was piqued . Apparently these two played often. Here is the game in question (if I'm not mistaken).
As always, you can use the hints at the bottom of the puzzle to view how the game ended.
Oct 20, 2017
0
#326
yureesystem wrote:
You are too strong to understand that amateurs play really bad...
Every strong player was once an amateur who played really poorly.
SIowMove wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
You are too strong to understand that amateurs play really bad...
Every strong player was once an amateur who played really poorly.
Hey! That's good news. I have fulfilled the prerequisite to becoming a strong player, lol! For I am an amateur who plays really poorly!
SIowMove wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
You are too strong to understand that amateurs play really bad...
Every strong player was once an amateur who played really poorly.
The point is the once low rated did something to correct it and become high rated; tactics is the solution to becoming a strong player. When I seventeen I was very lucky to meet a Russian Player; I ask most ask question;" How can I become strong?" He give me the 10001 sacrifice and combination by Fred Reinfeld and study this and you will become strong player. I did and became an expert. I dedicate my user name to that man.
Its not what you know in the opening but can you win? The player who is tactical monster and knowledgeable in the endgame dominate the board. Yesterday I played bullet game and one my opponent played the boring Larsen Attack 1.b3 and I played 1...a5! 2.Bb2 h5! and I beat him bad; did he lose because of the opening,NO! He lost because he is weak in tactics and doesn't understand chess, he should of beat me with 1...a5 and 2...h5 is losing.
Here is my opponent W: vrdtmr vs. B; yureesystem, you can view the bullet game but don't post it or make any negative comments to my opponent.
So you can see at the lower level opening theory doesn't matter but you better be good in tactics.
SeniorPatzer wrote:
SIowMove wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
You are too strong to understand that amateurs play really bad...
Every strong player was once an amateur who played really poorly.
Hey! That's good news. I have fulfilled the prerequisite to becoming a strong player, lol! For I am an amateur who plays really poorly!
SeniorPatzer, why not give it a try, get a 1001 combination and sacrifice by Fred Reinfeld and go through it for six months and see what will happen; I bet you will win more games.
yureesystem wrote:
Its not what you know in the opening but can you win? The player who is tactical monster and knowledgeable in the endgame dominate the board. Yesterday I played bullet game and one my opponent played the boring Larsen Attack 1.b3 and I played 1...a5! 2.Bb2 h5! and I beat him bad; did he lose because of the opening,NO! He lost because he is weak in tactics and doesn't understand chess, he should of beat me with 1...a5 and 2...h5 is losing.
Here is my opponent W: vrdtmr vs. B; yureesystem, you can view the bullet game but don't post it or make any negative comments to my opponent.
So you can see at the lower level opening theory doesn't matter but you better be good in tactics.
Such logic. Much wow.
yureesystem wrote:
... You are too strong to understand that amateurs play really bad, ...
"... Once you identify an opening you really like and wish to learn in more depth, then should you pick up a book on a particular opening or variation. Start with ones that explain the opening variations and are not just meant for advanced players. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
yureesystem wrote:
... what good is it to get a won position and you don't know how to win it; because you can't attack or you really bad in tactics. How many players in this forum can win the game from Geller vs,Keres, after 18.Bxh6!, its not so easy and most would choke it. ...
Does it perhaps do some "good" having help to avoid going "very wrong very quickly"?
"... In the middlegame and especially the endgame you can get a long way through relying on general principles and the calculation of variations; in the opening you can go very wrong very quickly if you don't know what ideas have worked and what haven't in the past. It has taken hundreds of years of trial and error by great minds like Alekhine and, in our day, Kasparov to reach our current knowledge of the openings. ..." - GM Neil McDonald (2001)
yureesystem wrote:
... Studying tactics for a low rated amateurs does more good than harm, he practice the art of calculating and visualize positions in his mind, ...
Is anyone here advising against studying tactics?
yureesystem wrote:
... I say about 95% here don't understand positional at all, they talk about the importance of positional skills but they don't implement any sound positional concepts in their games.
Perhaps one can improve by trying to implement sound positional concepts?
yureesystem wrote:
... the once low rated did something to correct it and become high rated; tactics is the solution to becoming a strong player. ...
"If you want to improve in classical ( slow ) chess you have to work on all 3 phases of the game . ..." - NM Reb (August 30, 2017)
yureesystem wrote:
... When I seventeen I was very lucky to meet a Russian Player; I ask most ask question;" How can I become strong?" He give me the 10001 sacrifice and combination by Fred Reinfeld and study this and you will become strong player. I did and became an expert. ...
Is it reasonable to suppose that something will work for everyone if it worked for you?
yureesystem wrote:
... The player who is tactical monster and knowledgeable in the endgame dominate the board. ...
Is it realistic to expect everyone to become a "tactical monster".
yureesystem wrote:
... Yesterday I played bullet game ... I beat him bad; did he lose because of the opening,NO! He lost because he is weak in tactics and doesn't understand chess, ...
So you can see at the lower level opening theory doesn't matter but you better be good in tactics.
Isn't that rather a lot to claim on the basis of a bullet game? Also:
"... A remark like 'games are rarely decided in the opening' does not really do justice to the issue. ... even if an initial opening advantage gets spoiled by subsequent mistakes, this doesn't render it meaningless. In the long run, having the advantage out of the opening will bring you better results. Maybe this warning against the study of openings especially focuses on 'merely learning moves'. But almost all opening books and DVD's give ample attention to general plans and developing schemes, typical tactics, whole games, and so on. ..." - IM Willy Hendriks (2012)
I took Amtrak to the Reno Western States Open this past weekend. On the way back home, someone must have recognized me at the tournament, and asked me to sit with them to go over there games. This person was rated around 1200, and had played up in the C section. 4 losses, and 2 draws. There constant excuse for each loss? "I messed up my opening theory" We went over the games, and i had to inform them that they lost because they missed a simple tactic, hung a piece, or violated opening principles. The person tried to defend there position by saying: "Well i am working on the accellerated dragon" (Shocker) So i asked to see there game(s) with the accellerated dragon? The reply was "I just showed it to you" I had to let them know that playing 1...d5 2...c5 3...g6 is not an accellerated dragon, and that its not even a sicilian. "But it must be...i fianchettoed my bishop"