Understanding beats Tactics, but tactics needs a strong presence in lower levels

@Steven-ODonghue, 

Respect to you but the conversation for that was over, please be relavant to the topic I would really appreciate it and I think others as well.

But I will say this:

Rating is just an estimation or better  said, it is as I would like to put it a placeholder, I know someone who has a rating of 1700 in chess.com, but actually is 2067 in real life.(

Rating is not a good figure, playing the game and seeing how a player plays is a good estimate, but I say estimate because it takes many games to realize a player's true strength. If you want to know how strong a player really is, I recommend playing them at least 20-50 games...

Like I said Rating is a bare minimum estimate, I don't think I am actually 1600, I feel like I could be more but wouldn't be upset if it was less. Truly I just take it one game at a time, and let my statistics(anaylsis w/ good or bad moves) determine how good I am as strength and rating is an estimate. 

There are some days I feel as strong as a 2000. There are also days I feel like I am a 1500 at best. So really the only thing we can do is be consistent and play our best games, that is what I believe determines ratings. I don't believe ratings on chess.com tell the whole story anyways. The most relatable chess ratings that I see are the closest to the truth is OTB ratings, but even so that is the closest, not neccessarily 100% accurate for chess again is an estimation of skill, just like some other sports/mental sports as well. Different strengths lie, so as long as a person is consistent and knowns their strengths and weaknesses it is good for them to estimate where they are, but Elo ratings are not a good comparision as I believe much more analyzing and information as well as time is needed to understand where a person is truly in their game and how much potential they may have.

That's all I have to say.

No, from your best games section.

Let it go.  Some people like to argue just to hear themselves argue.  You would make more progress if you nailed one foot to the floor and ran around in a circle.

Dont forget Petrosian.  You know...the "boring guy"  The guy that went undefeated 2 years straight in the USSR championship,and the king of the exchange sac.

Understanding beats me (people call me tactics)

Petrosian was also one of the top blitz players in the world... perhaps that's expected given his boa-constrictor playing style.

@LineBreak, 

I agree with you somewhat in that regard, it is true that both positional play and tactics is needed, specifically for certain Grandmaster's playstlyes they had different specialities and their specialties lead them to different places in their chess career: 

Tal- Tactical genius and Calculating Machine, had more anti-positional games than positional because he would always imbalance the game and make it choaotic, and within him imbalancing the game the opposing masters for most of the time had to look at 5-10 different lines or variations based on one crazy move. This is based on pure calculation not neccessarily positional understanding, there was games that Tal literally saw no weakness in a position and sacrificed material and won, that is why we called him a Tactical genius. But it is also true that in a lot of positions it did take mistakes and certain human errors for Tal to do his bidding, however even in that finding errors is not the hard part of you are a calculating machine. If we think about it if we could caculate like tal, many people wouldn't use a lot of positional understanding as in the case of Tal he thought that his calculating motifs was enough and being anti-positional was the way for him. But it wasn't the way for him based on principle, it was based on him and his comfortability on his style, so that is why in his case positional understanding was known but more or less minimally used unless he had to use it.

As Tal was the opposite of Karpov and Capablanca, he wanted those crazy positions, he wante the imbalances, he wanted it to be anti-positional so he could take his opponent into deep dark forests because he was comfortable there and a lot of his opponents werne't. Due to this a lot of his players just lost because of the pressure in all reality. With knowing he was the opposite of positional masterminds such as Capablanca, Karpov and more it shows that I highly doubt that Mikail Tal relied heavily on positional understanding, the only time he did that was later on in his life when he could no longer sustain calculating anymore. 

There are a bunch more examples of the extreme opposites and how their play was unique to them, truly the game of chess is a game of principle by how a man plays his or her own game in that top level, but in order to reach the ultimate top you have to have first reach that level of positional understanding and then only then will I believe that tactics can sure follow.

But there are many factors and my belief still stand that positional understanding is needed for the very high play while tactics is very much needed at lower levels. Both is needed no doubt and one cannot do without the other, but to put it into perspective a lot of grandmasters we're not like what you say. Some we either great tactically, some were great positionally or some were great defensively, and the list goes on and on. 

But I do agree that in order to reach a good level you have to have both but for the case of these all-time greats, such was not the case not just for a few, but for many of them. They had their skills and talents and most of them were positional master's, I haven't seen such a positional master that outright losses just because they don't have the best grasp on tactics, still even in that senario their moves are very good and they win because they know how to play the game based on their standards and their comfortablility and if they can do that then I think they can go to far places(Just think of Caruana, Magnus, Levion Aronian, Wesly so, all these people are great at positional understanding and their tactical understnading for thier level is quiet, lets just say standard, their positional play definitley helps them more and it proves it as they are the top in the world...)

So I get what you are saying but for all the players who want to improve I urge them to understand positions, moves, weaknesses, strengths and a good amount of other things and if they understand positions, and have even a minimal tactical understanding(lets say 1500-1600) they can go places

Whosever said "so long tactics" my friend, I just said if you want to make it to higher levels of play, you have to have superior positional understanding.

I said that tactics is needed, but much needed on the lower level as you probably don't see because you are not in the lower rated section most of the people mostly lose on tactical mistakes and I was bringing it to the attention that people that are higher rated need to have positional understanding in their arsental as well as for the amatuers they need a higher tactical strength. 

Nobody said that "So long, tactics! or "Positional play is the key to Mastery(although depending on your playstlye it can be significantly better than tactical play alone.) 

This debate has no meaning as positional understanding is neeeded but only so few people understand how legitamitley important is to foundation and the maitence of positions. That is why GM's are GM's and Amatuers are Amateurs, there foundation on understanding is superior but in the positional sense it does allow them to activate tactical motifs but that is why positional understanding is needed as without it what could you do and without it there would not be as nearly(or if any) to players due to the lack of understanding and knowledge on the board. 

It is true but it not true at the same time, there is a lot of factors and depending on the position depends on the game, chess is not flexible in that way, there is no structured way about going theough the game as even principles are broken from time to time and the game is more flexible now than ever because of engines and crazy lines. 

So with this said truly even if you are correct, still not really becasue the game of chess is a flexible game now thinking about it. Certain positions require certain motifs, and certain understanding whether it be positional or tactic, but then some require only positional and some only require that winning move from a calculated line or a tactical shot made from the superior position to destroy an inferior posiiton. 

It depends so my opinion on this is neutral as flexiblity is the best word to describe this, it is not a structured game based on the same moves and same motifs every game, as ever person is different and brings a different game so knowing this we cannot say that both people need to have positional understanding and tactics in their games sometimes as sometimes positional understanding will be needed much more and sometimes tactical understanding will be needed much more, this argument of proportions has not structure to it and there is no point to agree to disagree or to disagree outright because both of our points are siad but even so their stuctures are not concrete for all games. 

So with this said I still believe what I said but you are correct when it comes to what you are saying however depending on the style, player, opponent, moves, mindset, record and understading and other things depends on a lot of where a player can go and what they can do and with that said both of our claims are correct..

Whatever the case is it doesn't matter, I play my game you play your game and its alright, this is what hte forums where made for and it is ok to disagree or to agree to disagree sometimes, its no biggy though you are correct like I said before but in some sitautions you are not and I am. It is a constant thing that leads to nothng so I respect your claim and hopefully your respect mine. 

Thank for your time and knowledge spread in this forum though...

Garsh fellas......I am only USCF 1239....ohhhh.......I did manage to beat a guy once who was 1912.....whoop dee do....

Main thing is to have fun playing chess. Don't  make chess a job unless you can compete on World Tour against MAGNUS. Make it one of your HOBBIES in life.

True, competing is not the way, but making it a hobby is definitley something nice... 

@NickawampusLeroy has the right idea as making taking it too seriously diminishes the love of the game, I think we need to have a balance of competition as well as fun.

Competing is fun.  Positional tactics or Tactically positional?

I have to say, I think Tactically positional as it is a combination of positional play and tactics, however honestly I picked tactically positional because it sounds better... lol

But competing is definitley fun!

Competing is definitley fun @Senior Patzer,

Honestly though I would probably do Positional Tactics because in my opinion and playstyle I see that the position builds the tactical motifs that there may be and because of this positional tactics seems like the way to go for me.

This is of course this is not a trick question of course as positional tactics and being tactically positional sounds like the same thing. So really could it be that I am both?

Whatever the case what about you?

@TumpaiTurbo 

No doubt it is always important to help our fellow members and spread knowledge when we can. If someone is learning something and becoming better than yesterday, that is something that helps all of the chess community, and that is why it is so important!

So you are welcome, I am glad that it was very informative, and that you found all of these various people having informative ideas worthwhile, it is very important for all members that take interest and learn despite our differences, as the more we learn and apply the more we grow, so that is the mission.

Or at least one of them!

I strongly agree with you! This is the profile of the "nowadays chessplayer" at amateur level. (up 2300 is or smth) Tactics-tactics-tactics openings-openings-openings and more tactics-tactics, etc with almost zero, but very limited endgame and/or positional unserstanding.

How to beat those players?

Learn some solid openings (not too many its a waste of time) which are hard to crack. Get your tactics at some basic level, so when your opponents start some tricky moves you sense danger. Learn a tons of endgame (not only theory, but aim for understanding), positional play.

When they cant beat you in 20 moves, they start to get frustrated. They offer a draw, because they dont like endgame, (because they didnt practice it). You decline, they have no idea what to do, and you beat them easily.

And this actually works, and its sad lol.

I feel like people blame tactics for everything, when often, it's being in a positional mess that causes tactics to arise in the first place.

Take this game for example. Did I win tactically, or did I win positionally?

I'd actually argue that I won this game more because of positional blunders than tactical blunders, even though tactics were what I used to deliver the finishing blow:

Certeanly there is relation between tactics-position. If your opponent makes positional mistakes, there will be tactical opportunities. Practicing tactics is important to spot these opportunities. If you and your opponent plays almost perfectly, with almost no positional mistakes, there will be no, or very few tactics.

So to answer you question: Your opponent made some positional mistakes, and you exploited it with tactics, and you wont the game!

Nice sac btw!

@AronSakacs, very true...

I do believe a lot of players don't look at the positional side of positions, especially when it comes to the Endgames, as it seems people sometimes don't know how to play the Endgame at higher levels effectively and that is one of the most important parts of the game. When I do the Endgame I know it is based off of accuracy and progress, however sometimes my opponents make flops in the endgame and just lose them, sometimes this especially happens when the Endgame is drawish. Sometimes it deals with the time pressure (as that is a huge factor at times) however sometimes they have plenty of time and I think they just lack the proper understanding or experience to play with a specific Endgame position, in which is not good. The Majority of people like Endgames, but there is a difference between liking and doing well in them, though there is a correlation in that in many things in life. But also for the people that are not doing well it is not good because they are not focused on them it seems, perhaps they are complacent or they think they got it and then boom, they end up blundering or I get some advantage like the opposition without even trying. So truly “Chess is not a game you win, rather the other person lose.”

But I have to say your Endgame is on point, that's for sure! And as for as players losing with certain openings that is also true to some degree in my experience, as for me I really don't play to many openings, I am not a technician who specializes in 30 openings, if anything I am a technician (if I can say technician in this regard) that is more specialized in 5-10 openings (Some of them Include Reti Gambit, Old Benoni/ Modern Benoni Defense (any variation), London System, Slav Defense (any variation), Ruy Lopez, Sicilian Defense (not specialized but good in certain lines) etc. etc. 

Point is I think it is much more efficient to be good in a few lines of an opening or a few openings than to be average at 30-40 openings or lines... Knowing this I feel like having the positional knowledge of an opening is so important and though tactics are important I feel like they are limited to a high degree, as the more accurate a person plays the more they won't see tactics and the more a player will have to refer to position knowledge and less sacrifices/imbalances in a position. 

Moreover you are right with the claim of the "nowadays chess player" people are being trained how to win like a robot/engine but not to understand what is happening in positions purley like the old masters. People that win games have high levels of positional understandings and their positional understanding helps their tactical visions and motifs. If people understood that tactics is not 90% of the game, they would understand the difference between SGM and GM's from CM's, NM's, FM's or LM's (USCF Life Master).  As that is the difference, the superiority between positional understandings as in the master level there are plenty of people that have strong tactical knowledge. Sometimes master's have more tactical knowledge and depth than I'M and GM's, however the reason they don't go far is because their positional knowledge is hindered in which hinders the rest of their game, in a way one cannot go without the other. However people will not go far if they don't apply the understanding within positions shown but once they do they will discover the best or "brilliant moves" consistently. However if they don't have the understanding, they will be known as having good game or a game that has chances but never pulls through. That is how I like to view as tactics being so called 90% of chess all-round. 

Now is tactics the majority of chess at lower levels? Absolutely and may even be used more than strategy in some parts of the game. However as a whole usually the strategy builds the tactics, as "tactics flow from a superior position, such as was seen in @Deranged game from earlier. And knowing this positional ideas always float over the tactical motifs played, in such a position shown from earlier the position was compromised and only thne was Deranged allowed to go for the killing blow. However if the position wasn't compromised to a certain degree then that means the posiiton wouldn't have allowed for such powerful motifs, and this goes for every chess position. As "Without error there can be no brilliancy" as Emanuel Lasker said, so since this is the case my point would make some sense...

Btw I don't think having good opening repitoires it is a bad strategy at all for you @AronSakacs  as to play an opening your opponent doesn't know and they get lost in. After all this is something that need to watch out for and need to be careful for going in, but if they are playing lines they are not familiar going up against, they just need to stick in their comfort zone in the opening they play. 

As I like to think, if you are going into a position you are uncomfortable with or don't properly know, that is your first blunder, and though it is not a blunder on the computer it is a mental blunder because you know you shouldn't be in that position that you have no idea of what to do in.

So your strategy is valid and it is good, if you can win with it win! (To be truthfully honest I do this as well, lol) 

I guess that is the thoughts on what is going on in the chess world for now...