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

@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...

@Deranged also nice game, you did a great job picking apart that position and tactically finishing the job. 

It is true that your opponent just made it harder on himself in the end and made positional mistakes that allowed you to deliver the killing blow. A very nice tactic to end the game with checkmate on the board!

It seemed a lot of that play was forced but honestly your opponent just had a run for his money, definitley a position you would not want to play if you don't know how to play the most accurate moves...

 

@AronSakacs Exactly!

People that make little to no positional mistakes will have little to no tactics in the position. And from there is will just be due to the grind in positional play. 

This is why 70% of games on them master levels are draws as they play near perfectly and consistently and because of this (and their preparation, sadly) they get a lot of draws. I am not necessarily happy with this development however it is true that the more people make less mistakes the lesser tactics will be afloat and the understanding of a game (in openings, middlegame and endgame) will determine a victor but still in this a lot of games are still quite close, and either end in a draw at that level or is fought to the death of grinding or is tactically and positionally won due to a superior game, however I will say in that level not only one can be established, both players will have to be strong tactically and positionally and for the most part GM's are slightly more established positionally and grind but there are some big tactical players such as Topalav, Ivanchuk and at one point in time it was Kasparov, but even too all of those people have outstanding positional knowledge. The only one I would probably mark off if I had the chance was Topalav as though his games are nice to watch and he is a tactical and attacking machine, his positional play is not like those of Fabiano Caruana or Wesly So so I think he is a top 30 player in my book. 

Regardless if people play perfectly or really near perfectly tactics shouldn't come and that is why understanding (especially in the long-term beats tactics) beats tactics and I prefer it over many tactics. And it is not like I am giving it favoritism, honestly tactics are fun, surprising, astonishing, incredible and anti-positional and Tal was a master of psychology, attacks, tactics and imagination. However among this they are limited, and again this is why I say 13/14 World Champions were positionally dominant and the only exception was Mikhail Tal in 1960 in which who just simply outcalculated and put Mikhail Botvinnik physiologically in a wheel chair in those days, at least for those championship matches, lol...

But that is how I view the matter!

 

The main reason why neural networks have revolutionized computer chess is that they have a deeper understanding of positional play than do traditional engines. Traditional engine calculate zillions of variations several moves ahead, and can be thought of as the ultimate tacticians.

Neural networks calculate many times fewer variations and at the simplest level, neural networks think in terms of what positions give me the best chance of winning. They will make moves that improve their pieces and make the opponent’s pieces worse, but don’t necessarily attack anything. They think long term.

So at the highest level of play (Leela is is to Magnus what Magnus is to a FIDE candidate master), positional play is winning this argument... for now.

The "END GAME" is usually filled with open spaces which is harder to analyze for many. Finding the balance between offense and defense is crucial. Some people don't play their remaining pieces effectively.  

@NikkiLikeChikki

That is a very good claim and it makes sense with the difference between the traditional engines and the neural networks such as Alpha Zero, Chess Leela and others. I would say that this is the exact reason why they are winning and dominanting the competition against other engines as it seems like The Neural are qualitative while the traditional engines are quantitative so your claim definitley seems valid...

Positional play has always been overshadowed in my opinion and hasn't quite got the understanding of a great bit of players, again people just like tactics, and sure tactics are fun, but in order to thrive in the game I still believe positional play must be mastered in a high degree. Even so that there are many masters that are positionally strong and subpar with tactics(there version of subpar is like 2300-2400 if they are a GM, however there positionally play is like a 2500-2600 and is one of their strongsuiites. This is one of the reasons they are stronger in the endgames and play better as a whole. Truly they do go both hand to hand, however in my belief I still think in order to succeed a lot of mastery in it is key. Or in other words, the Amatuer level is different from the master level, and the master level is different from the GM and Super GM level and the Super GM level is different from traditional and neural network engines. But among this the people succeed so much because of higher levels of positional play and understanding. So I agree.

@NickawampusLeroy 

It is also true that the Endgame is open spaced and does have simplicity along with it. In which makes it the more easy but also the more difficult. Basically the Endgame says you will either get perfect moves and get a draw or win, or you will make subpar or losing moves and you will lose the game. You have to be extremely accurate in the Endgame and if you are not then you could be in some trouble for a long time, until that part of the game is improved. Of course I am not talk to your specifically but to anyone as a whole(including me as I am not excempt) if someone is struggling in any part of the game(but the Endgame especially) they need to study it, otherwise they will keep losing due to the lack of understanding regardless of how much experience you have.

To put it this way, lets say a 1500 keeps playing a GM. If they don't study and analyze the game throughouly and seek to improve, it doensn't matter how many times you play the GM or lack thereof, regardless you will not learn and therefore not improve. The same goes for the Endgame or any other place in the game of chess, as if someone is not afluent in a specific part of the game, there game can be picked apart and can be diminished by other players of their same level or higher.

Of course nobody has an obligation to study, but among this to relate to this conversation the Endgame is so important because it caries positional principles, and sure there will be time for tactics in and endgame, however you need to understand basis of positions and need to understand where they come from and what you can do to accumulate and to to winning chances to a win. Of course this is not easy to do at times, but this is one of the reasons the Endgame is important. 

Of course my friend I am not directing this towards you as I am sure you are afluent in the Endgame, but I am talking about the majority of players, literally for most players there Endgames are off and this is what I agree with you with a lot in @NickawampusLeroy, as players seem to focus so much on opennigs and middlegames, to the point that when you get to the endgame they have the basic  knowledge and experience but are not masterful in it enough to convert advantages to winning positions or to save losing positions. 

I just played a player this morning and he was pretty legit in the Endgame and no doubt I could've played better(since it was 10 minute blitz) but for the opponent I was playing against he just had a hard position, however in the end when he needed to win the most, he blundered the advantage and I ended up winning the game with 3 passed pawns in the center of the board. But do have in mind my opponent had 4 connected passed pawns on the Kingside, and the unfortunate part about it was that though it looked to be tough to convert I knew he had chances, however when he blundered he lost everything he had, and it was unfortunate for him. 

But also I do have to take in mind that at the time we both had 1:30 on our clocks, but even in this since he was the higher rated player, he should've done better in the Endgame. Of course I know I shouldn't assume he should do better because he has the higher rating, however I was interested as why he wasn't playing correctly, perhaps it was due to the stress, or maybe it was due to lack of study and understanding for the Endgame. 

So within this example it shows why studying the Endgame on positional principles is good and why understanding is king, especially in the Endgame. There were no tactics in this Endgame, it was bishops of opposite colors and it came down to whoever had the better position and understanding won, and just so happens I did(I had the better position, but I assume I had the better understanding of what was going on in that position for that specific game).

Regardless this is why the Endgame is so important, on all levels in my opinion!

Actually, traditional engines do better at endgames because it’s all about tactics and calculation. In her first year Leela famously would take a better position into the end game and lose to the superior tactics of Stockfish.

However, neural networks are absolutely much better in the middle game where position and piece activity are most important. Even at the beginning, if Stockfish isn’t given a book, it really has no idea where to start, whereas Leela always seems to have a plan.

By the way, Leela’s favorite opening when she chooses on her own, seems to be the Catalan as white. Against d4 she usually chooses the queen’s gambit declined, and against e4 she plays e5 and then waits to see the second move.

Nice to know @NikkiLikeChikki, very informative!

Speaking in this though you say you think Endgames are more about calculation or about understanding? For me I think a player has to be effective in both(positional and tactical) for the matter, but the more understanding of positions, the better. But I guess it is true that with tactics and calculation it is an enhancement towards the play in endgames so I guess that is why stockfish is better specifically in the Endgame. As though there positional understanding is not greater, there tactics makes them superior due to the simplicity and accuracy needed in the Endgame.

But still this makes me wonder as there are plenty of examples in chess history that the positional player won in due to greater understandings. There were plenty of games and such was with Bobby Fischer who simply outplayed his opponent in the Endgame and left them clueless as to how, similiar to the Karpov effect. As Karpov was one of those players that was good in all parts of the game, however when the dust settled you wondered how he beat you, as one grandmaster would analyze and study his game and figure that he make no blunders and minimum mistakes. However it just seemed like in those days that Karpov was so positionally dominant and gifted that he beat people without even masters knowing how.(even if other masters played well in the eyesight of the majority and other masters). This is the same with Bobby Fischer and his Endgames, he was so positionally dominant that players wondered how they lost, and once they found out how they lost they would be astonished as they would realize they got outplayed without even knowing it. Literally Bobby would make an equal Endgame into a winning endgame at times and that was just one of his ablilities as such as strong grandmaster during his time, and his short time as champion(more of rather in the candidate tournaments and facing Spassky for the world championship in 1772). But regardless this is on human standards, and perhaps because this is one mankinds standards of chess and not on a engine's skill level it is a little bit different, after all these engines have access to every line in chess that has every been played and then some more. So I wouldn't just say that traditional engines are just better in the Endgame, but I would definitley say they may have a edge compared to the Neural Networks, but speaking from a point of view like what was previously stated, it is hard to say why Stockfish may be better, but I trust you for this, unless you care to prove the numbers good sir...

Also in your last paragrah. What about c4 and Nf3? These openings are just as good as e4 or d4, even by me I prefer them and so many masters do too. However considering these are engines they probably are not interested since the chances are more diminished, but even so they are not perfect and such nice and brilliant games can come out of those positions as well...

The competition and battle between neural networks vs traditional engines is very interested, such is the difference but both the relative important of positional understanding on the higher/highest levels of chess while tactics needs to be mastered in the Amatuer levels as well. But even so if you think about it, such as @Deranged said earlier, it is not so much people make tactical mistakes but positional blunders and that is why they play so poorly. Whether it be in the opening, middlegame or endgame at times, and that is why it is so important for people to study the game but also study the positional understanding behind the game so such mistakes are not possible. As positional error allows for tactics, as such said by Emanuel Lasker "without error there can be no brilliancy" and such the reason why Stockfish cannot beat chess networks like Alpha Zero and Leela is because they take advantage of all the positional weaknesses calculated in their pre-calculated lines. However since Alpha and Leela are so strong positionally(as you say in the middlegame) it is almost impossible for them to lose their games unless they make a positional mistake or miss a very important tactic(from the other engines positional blunder) but for these top engines to make mistakes, it is very unlikely. 

Regardless very interesting conversation about chess... I do think positional understanding will not "win" now but will always be more significant than tactics in one way or another. And it is not like I hate tactics or have a grudge against it, matter of fact I like tactics and playing crazy positions(at times) and like tactics because they are fun, however when speaking objectivley the fact of the matter is that positional play is dominant and so if someone played a perfect positional game, they would never lose, but always at least get a draw or win.

This was nicknamed by people that were strong positionally but average tactically and were named as :boring masters", such as Petrosyan or Smyslov, however in this discussion the reason they were so successful in being top Grandmasters during there time was due to the fact they were strong positionally and didn't neccessarily have to be tactical masterminds like Tal or Janowski, Keres or anyone along these lines. It makes them different from the Grandmasters and the competition they had in those days and this makes me more appreciate the positional eyesight of chess and where some of its orgins comes from (At least when they called some people the boring masters from those orgins).

Regardless though this is how I view it and you put up some good claims that everyone can learn from!

Let’s generate some hard science on chess improvement. I’m trying to recruit for a chess improvement RCT for amateur and intermediate chess improvers.

For those who are interested please go to the link below.

forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=DQSIkWdsW0yxEjajBLZtrQAAAAAAAAAAAAN__g8mdqpUOVhEQTBKRUlKQzNDQTlVMDdWUkpOR0s5Ti4u    

@Surly_Hobbs

Thanks I guess, but it would better if we could stick to the topic at hand with positional understanding at tactics for now, perhaps some may like to join this survey but it is not relevant for this page. I am not upset at all my friend, but next time please by more considerate of putting different topics on more relevant pages.

True, I always teach my students, Always check for tactics before you look for Strategical ideas.

These A.I. are far superior compared to Stockfish/Komodo. They easily outplay in the middlegames because they have better understanding of long term effects of piece/pawn sacrifice they make. I still remember December 2017 when they published AlphaZero games, couldn't believe it.

There is an absolutely astonishing video a month or so ago by chess.com on YouTube where Leela sacrificed a full piece early in the game for a pawn on d5. No human would ever ever make a long term positional sacrifice like that, and Stockfish thought it was winning for about 20 moves until it got mated. If you haven’t seen it, it’s a must.

Positional understanding is important, but it only tends to make a real difference between players on roughly the same tactical level.  In other words, an Expert today might have tons of theory and a great positional foundation, but he'd lose to an Anderssen each and every time.  Steinitz's tactical level (which was almost as good) was the bare minimum required to vanquish him through positional play.

The tactics you don't know/don't see can't be compensated for with any amount of positional proficiency.  Lasker and Alekhine proved as much.  If the other guy can see eight moves in and you can only manage four, you are going to lose pretty much all the time, even if his positional play is much worse than your own.  Why?  Because you'll be halfway down the trap line by the time you realize you've taken the bait.

To put it simply, sound tactics win, while sound positional play only make sound tactics harder to find.  If you focus on positional play to the neglect of improving your tactical depth, your game may get a little longer against a more gifted tactician than you are, but you'll lose just as consistently.

#78, Dsmith42, that's a pretty convincing argument to this tactically and positionally inept player.