Are you a Technician or a Tactician?

RooksAreCannons
Deep_Kanor52 escribió:
Numquam wrote:

This puzzle has got so many solutions. I found an alternative tactical and easy one. Just capturing the pawns isn't what I would call technical btw. It is just a more defensive approach. You eliminate your opponent's threats before trying to promote your own pawns.

 

This is much simpler..

I think the simplest is Bb1

 

Fixedthx

Are You Further Away from Being a Technician Or Tactician

Benjibass

Tactitian

varelse1
Benjibass wrote:

I found the technical one first

so did I, Benji.

((about 3 seconds before white offered the draw))

tongue.png

varelse1
Numquam wrote:
SmyslovFan schreef:
Evolvedtoo wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:

The question makes even less sense in an endgame. A technician such as Carlsen would work out the win in just the same way as a calculator such as Caruana would.

 car and carl are both technicians

Perhaps. They both calculate brilliantly. But we saw a major stylistic difference between the two in their match. Caruana got into trouble, especially in the rapids, because he had to calculate everything to completion while Carlsen had a better feel for the game and was able to play more fluidly. If the terms "technician" and "tactician" mean something, it would show up in their approach to unclear positions where one has a good sense of where the pieces belong as opposed to someone who has to calculate everthing. The classic example of this would be Botvinnik vs Tal.

But the type of position shown here is one where the difference is in the quality of the players, not really a stylistic difference. 

I thought technical players are good at endgames. So let's say you can choose between trading queens and go for a technical winning endgame or keep the queens on the board for a winning attack and both aren't easy, then the technician would choose the endgame and the tactician the attack.

Both can be intuitive. Would you call Kasparov an intuitive player? He is definitely more a tactician than technician. 

I would call Kasparov more a calculator. Alekhine as well.

Tal I think found his combinations more intuitively. He didn't "see" everything. he just played the move, because it felt right. (And quite often, post mortem showed his sacrifices were not sound. Not that that did his opponent any good at the board, with the clock running.)

amogh_saagar

I am tactician

DestartreK1st

Wow!

Numquam
varelse1 schreef:
Numquam wrote:
SmyslovFan schreef:
Evolvedtoo wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:

The question makes even less sense in an endgame. A technician such as Carlsen would work out the win in just the same way as a calculator such as Caruana would.

 car and carl are both technicians

Perhaps. They both calculate brilliantly. But we saw a major stylistic difference between the two in their match. Caruana got into trouble, especially in the rapids, because he had to calculate everything to completion while Carlsen had a better feel for the game and was able to play more fluidly. If the terms "technician" and "tactician" mean something, it would show up in their approach to unclear positions where one has a good sense of where the pieces belong as opposed to someone who has to calculate everthing. The classic example of this would be Botvinnik vs Tal.

But the type of position shown here is one where the difference is in the quality of the players, not really a stylistic difference. 

I thought technical players are good at endgames. So let's say you can choose between trading queens and go for a technical winning endgame or keep the queens on the board for a winning attack and both aren't easy, then the technician would choose the endgame and the tactician the attack.

Both can be intuitive. Would you call Kasparov an intuitive player? He is definitely more a tactician than technician. 

I would call Kasparov more a calculator. Alekhine as well.

Tal I think found his combinations more intuitively. He didn't "see" everything. he just played the move, because it felt right. (And quite often, post mortem showed his sacrifices were not sound. Not that that did his opponent any good at the board, with the clock running.)

You can't always calculate everything. Kasparov can calculate well, but he also has got great intuition/understanding. He has made lots of positional sacrifices, but compared to technical players his sacrifices were more often for a not so clear winning attack. 

varelse1

True.

But what really defined Kasparov, was his dedication to accuracy and perfection.

Particularly in his openings.

A move was either best, or it was garbage, in Garry's mind.

SmyslovFan

@Varelse1, that’s too simplistic a view of Kasparov’s approach to the game. His Garry Gambit line was an attempt to throw Karpov off his stride.He played the Tarrasch for a while, and the KID for many years despite knowing they weren’t objectively best.

Kasparov was first and foremost a fighter. He sought dynamic openings that gave him a chance for the full point. As Maurice Ashley pointed out, after Kasparov’s rare losses, he always came back meaner and usually won several games in a row.

Kasparov titled his first autobiography “Fighting Chess”.