What happens before there is a tactic in the position?

There is a lot advice out there which states: just study tactics. You don't need anything else until you are Elo XXX.  And xxx is usually a lot higher than mine 

While I totally see this is true for online speedchess, I keep struggling with this advice in otb chess.

Yes, i lose games by tactical blunders. So with studying tactics, those losses could have been avoided. And yes, sometimes I spot a tactic because my opponent makes a mistake.  So far so good. 

But in most of my otb games those mistakes aren't made. And that is even true for opponents with Elo as low as 1300, and 40/50 years of experience.  And it's not just me: in the computeranalysis, stockfish doesn't come up with any blunders or mistakes, either. I lose some (quite a a lot actually) of these games, while there are ZERO missed tactics, usually until the endgame.

0 blunders, 0 mistakes, 4 inaccuracies is not your average score for a 1300 player.  But still it happens more than once in my otb games against players in these elo range.  (i am currently 1475, but still provisional)

My best guess is that I am not putting enough pressure, i am not forcing my opponent into uncomfortable or tricky positions.   As far as tactics go, I am 100% relying on 'unforced errors'.

I am looking for the way you can push your opponent into making errors.  Is there any help out there on this topic?

Someone said on these forums: 'Tactics don't arise out of nowhere' But where do they come from?

Good question. The long answer is buy a strategy book and study it, like Pacman's Modern Chess Strategy.

The short answer is after you've completed development, you'll often choose an area of the board (queenside, center, or kingside) to seek play. You'll choose an area where you have a natural advantage in space or number of pieces. (Space in this context meaning squares behind your pawns).

For example in the position below it makes sense for white to focus on the kingside and black on the center / queenside.

After choosing an area there are 2 main ways to seek play... with or without a pawn break. (A pawn break is a pawn move that will force a trade of pawns one way or another.) For example in the above position black will play the c5 pawn break. White can't advance the d pawn, so either black will capture on d4, or white will capture on c5. The point is either way black's c file will no longer be blocked by a black pawn, and black will use the newly opened files / diagonals to (ideally) infiltrate into white's position and come into contact with weak points (isolated pawns, loose pieces, the king... any pawn on the 2nd rank is always weak since it can't be defended by a pawn... etc).

The other way is without pawn breaks. Again using the above example, it usually takes white too long to play the pawn break f5, but thanks to the e5 pawn white has so much space, that white can try to attack simply by piling up pieces in front of black's kingside... all the better if black has castled kingside, when a piece sacrifice (instead of a pawn break) will open lines.

The above diagram was an easy example, but what to do in a position like the one below?

In this case both sides have an equal amount of space, and may even have an equal number of pieces on each side. In these types of positions it's much harder to pressure your opponent. Sometimes positions are so balanced you'll simply have to wait until the endgame for things to get tricky.

In general though, in any middlegame position, if you're feeling really clueless and want to do something (and if your opponent has a pawn in the center), then it's often a good plan to play a pawn break against that center pawn. Sometimes you should be patient and "do nothing" but I'm telling you this because in all sorts of positions it's useful.

For example in the position below, black's main goal will be to find a good time to play c5 or e5. If black can't manage that in the first 20 or so moves, then it's likely black's position is just worse. White doesn't have a pawn break, but can try to use the extra space to attack on the kingside with a knight on e5 leading the charge (just for example)

So to recap, try to choose an area based on natural advantages, and then try to build up your pieces and infiltrate in that area, often using a pawn break, but not always. The point of infiltration is to come into contact with weak pawns, loose pieces, and/or the enemy king.

Oh, and one warning... sometimes players accidentally seek play in an area where their opponent has the advantage! For example

When this structure happens very early in the game, black is the one who benefits from the queenside pawn break b6, because white doesn't have enough pieces developed to make use of the space.

So the warning is open lines favor the side with more (or more active) pieces in that area, and in general, the more space you have, the more pieces you'll need to control it (otherwise your opponent may be the one infiltrating into your position).

Thanks a lot,

so strategy is the answer.  That would have been my best guess. But everytime i seek advice on strategy courses ofr books, the answer is: "You don't need strategy until elo 2000."

And indeed, most books and courses i find on strategy are aimed at players of at least 1800.

To strengthen my example above:

I guess, these experienced players with a 1200/1300 rating probably don't do anyting other themselves than waiting for their opponent to make unforced errors. (otherwise their Elo would have been higher)

But when they play stronger opponents, all of a sudden they do make blunders. So these stronger opponents did find a way to put them under pressure, where I failed. Because i am still clueless in that matter.

Seems like playing sound moves en blunderchecking just isn't enough, when your opponent does the same. 

People say a lot of silly things

In reality the best way to improve is to work on your weakest area. Openings, tactics, strategy, and endgames, all of these are useful for every rating. The only time I'll agree that studying should be ignored is if the player is still so new / low rated that they're often losing pieces for free.

Back on topic, you're right that waiting for mistakes makes it easy on your opponent... one simple way to add pressure is to avoid trades and focus on increasing activity.

1) Every time a trade is possible, check whether you can avoid it. If you initiate a trade you should have a good reason, and if you allow your opponent to initiate a trade it should either improve your position or retreating to avoid the trade was a bad option.

Often the piece that's doing the recapture has been improved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-k2fRVYeFg&t=112s&ab_channel=RemoteChessAcademy

2) Focus on keeping pieces mobile (open files, open diagonals, centralized, and protected) and active (in contact with weak pawns, squares near the opponent's king, that sort of thing).

By the way, I guess I covered strategy and positional play.

Strategy is long term plans (like deciding kingside play or a certain pawn break will be the unifying idea behind your next many moves).

Positional play is short term improvement like putting a rook on an open file, bishop on long diagonal, knight on an outpost, etc.

#4

"most books and courses i find on strategy are aimed at players of at least 1800."
++ Chess Fundamentals - Capablanca

"these experienced players with a 1200/1300 rating probably don't do anyting other themselves than waiting for their opponent to make unforced errors"
++ They make unforced errors themselves, that go unnoticed by their opponents.

"But when they play stronger opponents, all of a sudden they do make blunders."
++ No, the stronger opponents seize the opportunities.

"So these stronger opponents did find a way to put them under pressure"
++ Stronger opponents play sound moves.

"Seems like playing sound moves en blunderchecking just isn't enough, when your opponent does the same."
++ When none makes blunders and none makes tactical errors, then the endgame decides. When both grandmasters are equally good, then the opening decides.
There is a hierarchy: blunder checking > tactics > endgames > openings

This is how most experienced players react, but why is it then that even stockfish analysis doesnt find any unforced errors in their play?

Perhaps it is the definition of 'error'. At the moment I would define an unforced error as making a move which alters a sounds position into a position with a forcing tactic in it, regardless of how easy it is to find and exploit. If a forcing combination is there, it's there. I think that is somewhat how stockfish defines it.

Perhaps your definition of an error is making a move that gives your opponent more room to play/allows to increase the pressure. The type of errors where stockfish still says 'no problem, i can handle that', but where a human would see the arising complications ;-)

It's the latter where i am clueless. But the given advice helps, so thanks a lot you all.

"Tactics flow from a superior position" - former World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer.

Good Positional Chess, Planning & Strategy Books for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/introduction-to-positional-chess-planning-strategy

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell

#8

"This is how most experienced players react" ++ They may be right...

"why is it then that even stockfish analysis doesnt find any unforced errors in their play?"
++ If you make many errors in a row, then they have no time to make an error of their own

"Perhaps it is the definition of 'error'."
Error (?) = move that turns a drawn position into a lost position
Missed win (?) = move that turns a won position back into a drawn position
Blunder (??) = move that turns a won position into a lost position

"If a forcing combination is there, it's there." ++ Yes, that is right.
When two lower rated players play, A makes an error (?). B misses the win (?) and so it goes on and on until B seizes the opportunity and wins.
When now B plays a stronger player C, then C exploits one of the errors by B, that A failed to exploit. 

Are those guys cheating or what? An 1300-rated player playing a whole game without significant mistakes is suspicious. Very suspicious.

Can you present us with an actual game of this sort?

How to win every game of chess??

I consider the lazy way to beat somebody a few hundred points below you is to put your pieces on good squares while looking for tactics (both your tactics and your opponents).  

Also, I consider focusing on blunders, mistakes and inaccuracies to result in missing all the "good" moves that let your position drift weaker and weaker.  When using the site's analysis tool take note of the difference between Best, Excellent and Good moves since that is often the precursor to a position becoming decisive.

I don't think playing a error free game is sus at all my son is only 11 and only rated about 1000 in blitz on chess.com and I played a game sitting right next to him on our computers I blundered a rook trying to get his king and he played 48 error free moves to clench his first win.  On deeper personal analysis of the game simply put he had an easy path to holding control after the error. I have had bullet games I've played in  30 seconds with no mistakes and higher accuracy than when I'm playing daily or rapid sometimes both players just trade all the pieces and since the computer eval barley changes it is not bothered by the fact both players just killed all play for the game which in human eyes would maybe be less than ideal unless you think they are better than you.  conversely stockfish might be thousands of elo above me but when it comes to dumpstering  a 300 rated noob I probably mate them faster because I'm not afraid to make "bad moves" that threaten a win IE fools mate opener vs the computer opening queens gambit.  Plenty of positions computer doesn't like that a love and ones it loves that i lose in or find to difficult.  At the end of the day this game is much like any other game you play enough times and yo will see what positions you play good in naturally and get wins.  I enjoy and win more games with black out of the Sicilian than anything i do with white sometimes you need to use your own head not blindly follow the computers advise as your not a computer .  Imagine how bad computers would be at chess if checking each line took as long as it did for a human i wouldn't mistake speed of calculation for understanding. 

So to answer your question yes putting pressure on opponents and making threats wins games if you play super passive your opponent wont blunder.  By contrast you can play "bad moves" but even when pinning a piece is "bad" its  still one more thing for the guy your sitting across from to forget when he is busy playing another line in his head.  So yes play for more pressure but no there is no magic way to learn the best way to learn is play.  I find the number of hours you spend playing a week is the most relevant in determining how fast you improve.  So i don't know that i agree you need to study tactics or study strategy i think if you just play all the time you will start to understand more and more as you go.  Maybe you find out you like being passive and maybe aggressive.  When i first started i played more passive playing "not to lose" then i realized for me personally the lines i had the best win% were the ones i was applying pressure. 

My current plan of attack (note I am hardly playing this month) is to collect high accuracy master games and examine them without viewing the move order. (Games are in the same openings I play). What I do is a swot analysis turn by turn on Strengths of a move, weaknesses, opportunities the move from the other side give, threats resultant from a move and whether they can be ignored to progress with a plan. I make note of the move I think should be played and the idea behind it. Then I see what was played. At the end of the game I look with the engine analysis and see how my variation did against the master game position. I hope to be able to replicate the thinking in game to limit blunders and create strong pressure on the other side. Tactics come from a superior position so you still find them.

Imbalances tend to promote decisive results.  Trading an exchange for a pawn or two, or pawns in different areas of the board, or castling to opposite wings, or a rook and pawn for a couple of pieces are all different imbalances then reduce the likelihood of a draw.  Look for those materially "equal" imbalances that favor you.

Strategy is involved in everything from before, during and after a game. Tactics are drilled combinations you use if available in a posotion (or even part of your daily training metheodology). Strategic positional play may allow for use of tactics by deciding which pieces and pawns to keep or where to put them. In chess the terms tempi and development are logistical and maneuver considerations. Looking at your oponent's repetoire and learning theory for games with them, or even their variation tendencies is intelligence gathering. Novelty preperation is equivalent to capability improvement/technological development. You can draw as many paralels as you need to with military doctorine in the real world as chess is a war game. Tactics require drill. Strategy requires planing and adjustments. The officer sets the objective and the subordinates use their drilled tactics, and equipment to get the job done. In chess you need both. But to have no objective planning forces you to brute force calculate everything and remember it before acting. Positonal thinking with strategic planning narrows the calculating necessity and brings a continuity of play from which your tactics can flow and convert easier.

All semantics aside practically speaking this game is just like any other game.  I find when players spend so much time wondering how to min max their understanding each second they spending chessing are missing the forest for the trees.  Like a body builder obsessed with min maxing protein activations when simply lifting another day will yield better results.  I would worry less about how to spend your time and simply spend more time with chess and you will improve faster.  If anything worrying about all these things wastes time you could simply be playing chess and getting better. The best part is its more fun to do it that way too and while it is fun to memorize lines and make a repertoire with engines etc.  i find chess is much like anything else in life you put in lots of hours and you become good at it period and the relationship between hours spent playing and your ability is pretty hefty.  take a noob and give him perfectly efficient chess teaching for 10 hours and hes still a noob  take the same noob and make him spend years playing 10 thousand + games and has not gonna be a noob anymore in most cases no matter how he payed them and if he is no amount of coaching would help his potential is tapped.  

TLDR play more win more