Amateur Chess Is Mostly Tactics and That's Unfortunate For Me

When someone asks whether tactics or positional play is more important in chess the typical answer is that they are equally important.  And this is true if we are to define chess as played by the best players. However chess is not played this way by everyone. Amateur chess is filled with tactical errors and outright blunders. But if tactics and positional play are equally important, why aren't these amateurs losing to positional play just as much?

In fact the glaring issue of tactical play has led to some interesting quotes by titled players:

GM Magnus Carlsen when asked about what is important to breaking the 2000 barrier quotes:

"Studying tactics, I would say. Up to that level, most games are still decided by someone hanging a piece...or blundering a checkmate - haha"


But there's more:

"Until you are at least a high Class A player: Your first name is 'Tactics', your middle name is 'Tactics', and your last name is 'Tactics'." - FM Ken Smith

“Most class players are not triangulating each other to death”. - FM John Jacobs

The most striking however is this one:

"Thirty years ago, Teichmann said that chess is 99% tactics. And despite the enormous strides of chess theory since then, his percentage can only be reduced a few points

  Many amateurs think that master games are usually decided by some deeply-laid plan covering all possibilities for at least ten moves.. That is what they conceive the grand strategy of tournaments to be. Actually, however, strategical considerations, while quite important, do not cover a range or depth at all comparable to the popular notion. Very often, in fact, sound strategy can dispense with seeing ahead at all, except in a negative or trivial sense. And it is still true that most games, even between the greatest of the great, are decided by tactics or combinations which have little or nothing to do with the fundamental structure of the game". - GM Reuben Fine

It is made quite obvious that amateur chess is not the same as chess played at the highest levels. And this should not be hard to believe. Little league baseball is not on the same level as the major league. Pee wee football is not on the same level as as pro football. In these sports the differences in the proficiency of players create circumstances that lead to different play. In other words you can get away with things in lower levels that you wouldn't in higher ones.

Amateur chess is obviously different than high level chess because of tactics. Games are won and lost to a high degree because they appear so often. There's nothing wrong with this at all. That's just how it is. Now some people will say that they win many games positionally. Of course once you load those games into an engine mistakes are shown all over the place and it becomes obvious that it was not Karpovian strokes that won the game. Yes sometimes amateur games can include great moves. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. But in general it's just trying to playing positionally the best you can with a heavy emphasis blunder check.

However to me chess was introduced as a game of strategy and planning where you tried to find a great plan and put it into play. But for me it's not like that and it may never be like that. Sure I'll play what I think is best and make some logical choices but it will surely not be on par of that of a titled player. And at the end of the day all that planning means nothing if you can't keep pieces on the board does it? No.

So what chess ends up being for me is a game heavily based on calculation and tactics and not on positional play at all. It seems like the game was falsely advertised to me and I'll never really get to enjoy positional play because that is reserved for A players. The idea of tactics, tactics, tactics until then sounds tedious to me. If I wanted to think "I go here, he goes there" all the time I probably would've spent my time elsewhere... I think chess is a good game but most people will never really be able to play and enjoy tactics and strategy coming together because tactics are king for most.

You should have pride in your tactical ability, and tactics are fun. That's what chess is, a game of constant small calculations in order to make sure your move isn't a mistake and to take advantage of your opponent's mistakes. Chess is a fast moving, violent game.
If you want a game of more strategy and less tactics maybe you take up Go.

stronger players play positional chess. the higher you go, the more positional it becomes. gms don't look for the kill unless it's there from the off. lower rated players are always obsessed with tactics and the hunt. I'm the same. it's probably why I'll never improve. I'm always tactics, less positional. I'll play positional in the absence of another plan. but I'm obsessed with tactics. always looking for a combination that will hurt. higher rated players are smarter. they can see the combos. they'll slowly grind you down. at the end of the game you'll think "not even sure how I lost that".

I played around with go some time ago. I was a bit surprised when some advice I read was to start out on a 6x6 board to work on tactics...

But yeah Go tends to be quieter.

thanks for the feedback. Yes I play sicilian, less so grunfeld. i play the bowller attack quite often. probably statistically not the best, but I love f7 lines. tbh I play most games trying to get off the main lines early. but it's hard. as it's usually bad. I tend to be more adventurous on lower rated opponents. but they too can follow explorers. I find myself dragged 10 moves into a middle game I have little interest in. I'd like to think I've got a good repertoire of openings that avoid main lines that are still reasonably sound. technically all moves off the opening lines are still bad, but the ones I choose are at least not losing. pretty sure a gm would tear me apart in an instance mind.

I am very positional (ca 1400 fide). My last game in the clubchampionship was a positional battle for ca 23 moves, and then-bang, it exploded in tactics. Move 26 was so tactical with things happening all over the board that the position called for a Nakamura. I am not Nakamura, couldnt choose, and went for the most beautiful looking high central knightmove. Not the best move. The came became a firework, but I was able to win it partly with luck and partly because I saw slightly more than my opponent.

 

Those tactics, to get into them with advantage it was necessary to make twentyfive reasonable positional moves first.

I need to lean more endgame, and endgametactics.  Difficult to learn at my level because many games are decided earlier.

I wish to say two things on this topic.  First, there's a difference between tactics and blunders.  It's fully possible to take advantage of blunders without any tactics at all, or at least only the most rudimentary ones.

Second, I'm currently rated over 2100 for daily chess, and I don't consider myself a particularly good calculator or tactician.  I'm perhaps above average compared to an average player, but I'm below average compared to the 2100 crowd.  Most of my wins are through strategic and positional factors.  Here's a quick example.  Ask yourself, how many of these moves are tactical?

Now, to be fair to my opponent, he recently defeated me in glorious fashion.  I did not calculate very well, and though I evaded the mating net I still lost in the end.

 

Hat's off to my opponent.  All the same, in the two games, he had to work far harder for his win than I did.  He had to calculate variations, work out compensation, double-check everything, actively sacrifice and then convert a 3-2 Rook endgame.  In my win, I just played calm, simple moves, followed a plan and won 30 moves earlier.  Of course, you might argue that his win is prettier or more beautiful than mine, but a win is a win.

It IS possible to make chess primarily a positional, strategic game, even at amateur level.  It is a mistake, though, to try to always play a positional game.  In the second game, I lost because the position demanded concrete tactics and I was drifting... and, to be honest, lulled into complacency by my higher rating.  When the position demands tactics, you must calculate ... but it doesn't always demand tactics.

As a final thought, when most people say they need to improve tactics, they really need to decrease blunders.  When most people think tactics, they think Tal-like sacrifices, but what decides most games are simple hanging pieces and two-move forks.  You can play far more interesting strategic games once you stop making unforced errors, and that's mostly dilligence to blunder-check every move.

Tactics and endgame technique is more important in your daily study and you will win more games and save lost game than strategy or positional means. If you are weak in tactics your whole game is wanting.

The Russian School of chess begins with simple endgame and a lot tactical position that is why Russian are very strong players; do any of you really want to argue with Botvinnik?

These are nice games but I don't think they're any different than what those quotes describe.  Your opponent blundered a pawn in broad daylight in the first game even though you didn't really go after it. That seems pretty normal.

In the second game you needed to calculate the consequences of 11.cxd5 and 11.cxb5 which apparently led to really different positions. And then there is the choice of 13.Nfd4 Nxd4 14.ed winning a tempo instead of 13.Ne5. Attacking the bishop apparently has some affect on the position? Idunno why...

There's also 18.ba which wasn't forced. So it looks like both players had to do quite a bit of calculation.

The second game is a normal example. White could've been better but tactics prevailed when they shouldn't have.

But also a blunder is a tactical mistake as this definition describes it:

Blunder (chess) In chess, a blunder is a very bad move. It is usually caused by some tactical oversight, whether from time trouble, overconfidence or carelessness. While a blunder may seem like a stroke of luck for the opposing player, some chess players give their opponent plenty of opportunities to blunder. - Wikipedia

The difficulty of tactics isn't really a strong point imo. So Black had to work harder for a win. A win is a win isn't? We should expect to be ready to work hard for every win even if the opponent is lower rated. Besides, what if they're just underrated or something?

Anyway I'm not saying amateur players can't try to play positional chess. All I'm saying is that tactics tend to just come in and make it all a waste of time if you aren't prepared.

This is where I start to question my approach to the game. Why should I attempt to play 25 positional moves when the 26th move will be a blunder that makes the other moves meaningless and the whole endeavor a waste of time? I wonder if I would've been better off playing some kind of gambit or going into some concrete positions where there's nothing but tactics and calculation. Sure I won't last as long because of my weak tactics but at least I won't be wasting time by putting off the inevitable. I either win due to tactics or I lose due to them. There's no point in pretending otherwise.

And why does how long the game is matter anyway? I've seen games between GMs and 2000 rated players go on for over 40 moves. The 2000 players were completely lost for half of the game but the conversion took a long time. Sure from a competitive point of view one may try to hold on as long a possible hoping for their opponent to make an egregious error before they do but then why play at all? Why play any game if your hope is not to win but to not lose? People can do whatever suits their fancy but it sounds like a tedious and thankless endeavor to me - like hoping that positional chess is going to get you anywhere with a weak foundation in tactics.

Sure tactics puzzles are supposed to help but the idea of banging out tactics puzzles all day is the most tedious thing I can think of in this game. I hate tactics puzzles and have no interest in them. If I wanted to bang out calculation all day I'd do math problems or something. But I will probably never play anything resembling real chess unless I get pass the tactical blockade - a toll bridge of sorts you must cross long before you can be said to be doing anything strategical.

Some people don't mind this and even like it. And that's great. But I didn't plan on playing a strategical game that can't even be played strategically because tactics. It looks like beginners play tactics, not chess. And then when they have paid their tactical dues they get to play a game somewhat resembling chess. I didn't take up a game to pay any dues...

if you boil this long discussion down it really comes down to the fact that you don't like how hard it is to see tactics.

 

what do say?  Chess is REALLY hard.  if you want a simpler game there are many to choose from. 

OTOH; you could just Play for fun; and chillax about the inevitable tactical missteps.

 

Your last paragraph is prolly the clearest

"It looks like beginners play tactics, not chess."

strait up, Your don't understand Chess, then.  Saving your peices and avoiding being Checkmated IS Job #1 &2.  its the heart of chess.

 

ALSO  this BS about Gm's playing a different game.

Gm's have mastered what you are complaining about.  if they had just complained about it- and insisted it was too hard for them.  they Would NOT be Gm's.

 

totally bogus. IMHO

 

 

 

I don't know anyone who pushes strategy as much as tactics for under 2000 players. You can strategically look for imbalances, knight outposts, conditions that favor opposite-side castling, etc. but if you don't see the tactics you can use with them you have a problem.

Personally, I see the tactics when there's 3 days/move but the patterns are not in my head well enough for short-clock games.  So in Rapid or faster chess, I have a touch time seeing where to attack in the middle game.

I know virtually no high-level strategic ideas or theory, so it is probably fair to say that I got to NM just by tactics (and recognizing obvious weaknesses, solid opening principles, etc.).

There's a phrase that goes something like this: "Tactics are what you do when there is something to do. Strategy is what you do when there is nothing to do". So this leads naturally on to "Tactics are the culmination of good strategy". If you cannot convert your strategical advantage, it's impossible to win games. From what it sounds like, you're allowing your opponent too much counterplay when following your plan. You need to remember to go slowly and make sure that you don't allow him anything at all. Perhaps it would also be good to learn some opening systems and, most importantly, the ideas from those systems. For example, here is a game I had yesterday. Note how White is almost effortlessly able to grind Black down. Only his time shortage stopped him from reeling in the whole point.

A similar idea of Bishop on g2, b4-b5 etc. can be played from the English.

One of the biggest problems is that beginners think they can judge chess based on some misinformation. 

"Strategy" in chess is everything - your positional play is your goal in chess, while tactics are your implementation of that goal. This means that if chess were mainly based on positional play, everyone would be able to advance very quickly, since everything they did would work. 

This is obviously ridiculous. 

Tactics are about choosing the right way to go about your positional play. To that end, tactics themselves are "positional play", and that's how you should see tactics. 

Also, if chess were the way you  described it, everything would be a draw all the time (just like at high level chess). 

Chess IS hard. Go is also hard. One emphasises tactics and the other does not. I play both. I play other games that are hard and different than chess as well. Some things I like and some I don't. You're grasping at straws here. If you're going to make claims like this at least have something to stand on. It's possible to not like things about a game without it having anything to do with the difficulty of the game... TLDR; "git gud" is a bad argument and apologetic at best...

Also, the point of chess is to checkmate the opponent's king is it not? Saving your pieces and not being checkmated just seems like a smart thing to do...

On GMs and amateur's playing the same game - they don't... Maybe you're just being facetious here and want to say they are playing the same board game. That is true but it's not what I'm talking about. It's been scientifically proven that amateur chess players and GMs look at the board differently. Obviously they aren't even looking at the same things let alone playing the same things lol...

Yes GMs have mastered many concepts. Amateurs have not. Therefore their games will be of a different quality. GMs have been noted to and have testified to purposefully playing weaker moves in simuls simply because they know that their amateur opponents will not play properly. Why? Because there are things that you can get away with at lower levels that you can't at higher ones. This is true of every sport.

One anecdote sticks out here - the Kasparov simul at Johannesburg in 2011. Kasparov played a simul for players under 2000 and found that one of his opponent's was much stronger and protested. But why? Surely Kasparov could take this guy. He's played simuls against world class teams filled with titled players. So what was the problem? Well he was doing what all titled players do in a simul - he was playing down to his opponents in an attempt to beat them quickly.

The problem of course with this is that if he knew his opponent was over 2000, and did not already have a rule that he wouldn't play players over 2000, he would've played stronger moves against him that would've increased his chances. Can you do that? Good luck getting your final norms if you can.

No my friend we do not play the same game the GMs do.

I agree with Cherub. You may spy the beginning of a dark-squared weakness in your opponent's camp, decide to provoke more pawn moves to make his weakness worse, and force the exchange of his dark-squared bishop. Then play on the dark squares. 

That's a great plan. But your ability or inability to see it through will depend, every step of the way, on tactics/tactical vision. To me tactics are the fabric, the matter, that the chess world is made of. They are intrinsic. 

This is all well and good but it looks like White did have something to do with 20.c5 dc 21.bc Bxc6 2.Qxc5 winning material. Black was lucky that his opponent missed some tactics here. Every game is like this. Even with quiet structures like e3-d4-c4(c3) tactics will break out sooner or later. It just seems like the average game where the positional advantage could not be converted due to tactical oversights.