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

@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.

@DSmith42

We've already been over this... The positional masters have dominated the game of chess for years, and they will continue to I am not saying tactics is inferior as it is not. But it is just that positional understanding is very important is deemed more important in the higher levels of games for many reasons even previously stated in this forum.

Why?

Well, positional understanding is one of the objectives of the game. Besides checkmate the point is to get the most solid position and only then can tactics come. But tactics doesn't just come from nothing, it comes from deeper positional understanding, and due to this, that is how players such as Bobby, and Karpov and Kasparov too won there games as they were all strong positionally and it is no wonder they were champions. Of course Kasparov was great tactically but it was because of positional knowledge was he able to enhance his skill in tactics, such is the same for Bobby Fischer in many of his games as well.

Tactics is the form of an attack, but it doesn't build anything, if anything it only breaks down something whether it be a positional blunder on your part or the opponents part.  Tactics alone solves nothing as tactics are only used in positions that are positionally compromised. Moreover, people can become Grandmasters with strong positional understanding and average or even subpar tactics, however the same cannot be said for tactics. You cannot have strong ability for tactics and weak positional understanding, if this is the case you won't even become a NM because the fundamentals are not there, and they need to be there when you are at a higher level. 

Trust and believe my friend that both positional and tactics are needed, there is no doubt of that, but the topic is on why people in the lower levels need more tactical vision(2000 and below) and people that are 2000+ need that extra effeciency in positional understanding towards all of their game because if not then little or no improvement will be made. From my experience besides the lack of dedication and time that a person gives to chess, this is the different between a Amatuer and a Master in the game, primarily it is the positional part. 

And again average doesn't equal bad, people just assume average is not great because it is not what they are looking for of course people want to be expectional. However people that are GM's or IM's that have an average rating of tactics is still very strong compared to many other masters and GM's as well so average is not bad. However with subpar it is abnormal but for a person who has strong than normal levels of positional understanding(aka Karpov, Capablanca, Anand, Caruana) than the person in his group, trust me I would rather trust him to win than a person who is better tactically but average or subpar in positional understanding. Knowing this positional understanding in this game of chess is just dominant, and this is not being favored to anything this is just the truth.

Very and when I say very I mean it, very few players have reached such a high level without the proper positional understanding that is required to be on the top level. Let me give such an example as Alkehine(as you did my fellow member), yes he was a powerhouse in tactics and calculation, but because of his increased positional understanding he was made effective. Now without the positional understanding he will have the skill but it won't be applied as well and that is why you don't see people that are brilliant attackers/tacticians or calculators fighting for the world championship. Reason being is because again this fight of chess is about positions and about war of the better position and war of who can outlast and outplay, not who always who can scramble and make a mess. Again I will say it 15/16 World champions in some way shape or form where positionally dominant and 12 of them were just pure positional masterminds in the game and dominanted within there time. The only exception was Tal because he was just gifted with supreme calculation and was a mastermind in calculation, tactics and chess physcology, so truly in many games he played brilliantly and was a deserved champion during his time. However nobody else has come near close to Tal and these reason being is what is being explaned currently in this post.

There are to many ways to see how positional play impacts the game, and true that people have great tactical might but positional dominance wins their games. Another example comes from earlier with neural networks, it was so that Alpha Zero and Leela engines won because of their stronger positional play and they just had lesser variations and lesser calculations and straight up beat traditional engines in the heart of the middlegame. And once more this is not due to pure tactics it is due to positional understanding.

I could give seemingly thousands examples of why positional play is the factor that changes the game and molds it into the game when know today and is shaped up in top play. And from this I am not saying this with favortism I am saying this as a fact and objectively as this is true. I don't see any Grandmasters that have weak positionaly play, especially Super GM's. Again @Dsmith42 , the reason you may be losing is not because of tactics but because your positional play is not going anywhere, you may have experience but even so for some reason you are not gaining to much improvement and as a another fellow member I think it would be well to say if you would stop rejecting the way of positional play you will see that if you do well in it, study and make amends to your game then you will be much stronger and probably could break the 2000's in no time. But even so like I've said before you can just be average in positional play in the Amatuer level and as long as you are "good" in tactics and better than most of your opponents, I think reaching 2000's tactical is very achievable, but only to get out of the 1900's and other places, then you will be heading towards the near experts if that were to be the case. I consider experts higher level amatuers but still not normal ones.
But back to the topic at hand:
Again positional play is an enhancer of tactics but it is never the other way around and never will the other way around. This is not the battle of whether which one is better, but where they need to be applied whether in amatuer play or master play. Of course positional play and tactics are both needed and one truly cannot go without the other but again for this discussion it does seem that people in the Amatuer level need to master tactics and only then when they have that good tactical understanding then will they bring up there positional understanding to make significant breakthroughs in their study and play. 

I don't think you have to have exceptional positional understanding in Amatuer play, but in master play you have to have a good grip on it and in GM play you have to be near perfect in it. This is just how it is in chess and that is why this forum was brought up. Of course we may have disagreements but again that is what this discussions is about. 

Hopefully you understand my part of the discussion @Dsmith42.

Thank you for this post! I am a beginner and fascinated by this game. What reading would you suggest, that would give me better understanding of the game, without getting into tactics too soon. I use this app to practice but I find it frustrating as I’m not really learning much by solving puzzles etc.

@TheoFranse

I think the best way to practice is to continue to play the game, and if you are interested in reading I suggest reading a good manner of positional books to help you in your play.  Also if you are interested in reading chess books, don't go by what people say but go by what you like and understand the most. 

But rest assured reading books is not mandatory, it is not required. I do suggest analyzing your games and being aware of positional blunders and mistakes and to analyze where you went wrong in the game. If you can spot how to make the best moves and avoid blunders and mistakes I can tell you the game will be a good game and depending on how you go about it can give you a nice draw or win. 

But likewise tactics too is important and especially at your level as people make tactical mistakes that allow counterplay, and make positional blunders that allow tactics, so truly in order to master tactics you will have to be effecient at positional play, however the objective in your level is not to be yet a positional expert but just good enough in the knowledge of positions and moves to be great a tactics. 

However when it comes time that you break to higher levels such as 1800+ positional play will be a huge factor and generally people that are 2000(but to be really technical like 2200-2300)+ need a good percentage of positional play in their games to feed off of their play, whether they are purely positional or tactical in the game.

I believe that the more study, dedication and activity you have in the game, the better you will get my fellow member. Just keep playing, studying the middlegame and endgame and save the opening when you get around 1400 then you can start to build small repitoires. But just focus on how to make the best moves and not how to make the worst moves, concentrate and take the game seriously and you will go far.

You got this! @TheoFranse and keep playing the game won't dissapoint if you make the effort to go far!

Although im not a highly rated player but i believe positional understanding is much more important. Until youre in good position you cant look for tactics. If you have a positional advantage it becomes bit easier to spot tactics or simplify the game.

Hello!

There is no such a thing: "getting into tactics too soon" (okay maybe when you havent learn how the pieces move yet). Tactics are present at EVERY level, and they are very important to learn them! You keep practicing them, but find at least equal time to learn endgame aswell. The problem is, (not for me, thats why I have some winning chance) modern chess players are neglecting endgame learning, and they are focused on tactics only. Thats because it's giving them, fast "boost" in their chess "strength", but only for short term, As soon, as they stop, doing puzzles, their playing strenght starts fading  quickly without deep endgame understanding.

But if you learn both, you will rise quickly (because of the tactics) and you will stay strong (because of the endgame, positional knowledge).

As for the books, there are some very good ones. Unfortunately, I only study endgame books from Hungarian masters (since Im from Hungary) which are very old, and not sure, they were publish internationally. But Im sure you can find very good books from your country, if you know some people ask them, they probaly can help.

Long story short: keep practicing puzzles, and start learning endgames aswell! You will beat average chess-pub players soon!