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

This post reminds me of a 1200 OTB player that I know who always tells people at the local chess club that he actually has master-level positional understanding, and that he would be a master if he could just stop blundering.

It also reminds me of the guy who wants to run in the NY Marathon, but would never consider actually training. 

PenandPaper, this quote of yours from another thread that you started here:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-do-you-see-this-tactic

sums it all up for me:

a minute?

1. I never said I was a master of anything

2. I never said I wanted to be a master of anything

3. Git Gud is not an argument and ignores everything that was posted here

4. Please read the thread first so that you know what the thread is actually about before replying. Thanks.

Yes I agree. My only gripe is that positional play doesn't seem to hold the same importance as tactics for some time because tactics seem to be the only decider of games as opposed to positional play and tactical weaknesses are way easier to exploit. I don't think it's a problem with the game or anything. It was just something I was never told about and had to figure it out the hard way.

This insightful observation by Cherub was very helpful to me:

"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."

Although tactics and positional play (aka strategy in my parlance) are different, they are also intrinsically linked, and so it's a false dichotomy to artificially separate the two unnecessarily.  

My analogy:  Complaining about the tail end of a coin because you like the heads part of the coin better.  Look at the coin as a whole.  And appreciate both.

But I confess, I really do like your comment in #1.  I see much merit in your lament.  And tactics is the primary determiner in most chess games.  No denying that.  Thanks for starting a great thread, penandpaper.

At lower levels, games may be decided by tactics, but don't forget that tactics flow from a good position. Quite often, strong positional play is what creates the opportunity for tactics in the first place.

So yeah, positional play matters even at the lower levels.

I agree! I also believe that the better players you play the more positional building up you have to do before banging in with the tactics. Hitting to early can backfire.

 The way I see it is simple: In chess, you know what you want to do, and so you have to do it. You can't just say: "I want to checkmate my opponent's king, take some pawns, get very active position", etc. and have it just happen - you have to make it happen.

It's just like an inventor who wants to build some super advanced machine, but doesn't care about the details, or how that machine will work. 

Basically, "life is hard", because this idea in chess is as in life as well. 

Play Daily chess, where players have all the time in the world, can analyze positions by making moves on the board, can consult databases and books, search for videos etc.

So you can analyze each and every move to make sure you are not missing obvious tactics, like what is happening in live games between amateurs.

@penandpaper0089

firstly, interesting post and thanks for taking the time to right your thoughts down.

daily is all positional for me. The only tactics there, are taking advantage of opponents blunders, which are easy to see, because it is daily and u have much time (passed quite easily 1800 in an old account, in my first attempt at chess, and hopefully, will go for more on this one).

on the other hand, rapid is mostly tactics and avoiding blunders and blitz is avoiding blunders, opening traps and playing consistently very simple non blunder moves. If you try to be clever, you will be punished by losing on time. Of course, haven't yet managed to apply those and lose on time, or because of blunders, but I am working on it (I don't expect any miracles though).

if you like positional games, play daily

Totally legitimate complaint. Tactics are all those things: important, tedious, and drown out strategy at low levels.

However one of the saving graces of chess is that our similarly rated opponents struggle with the same things we do. A GM can go over a game between two 1300s and see many missed opportunities, but they're typically missed by both players. In this sense basic positional play is still important. You still need to worry about the activity of your pieces, the soundness of your pawn structure, and the safety of your king.

However sure, 1300 vs 1600 and it's a game of "I calculated this tactic you missed."

Although... that may be focusing on the end too much. The moves that brought about the tactical opportunity are important too. Usually a few moves before losing material, you feel pressured and start making uncomfortable moves.

Low-level games are often decided by BLUNDERS. I think that in this thread, we are failing to make a difference. When the OP plays 25 positional moves and then loses on a "tactic", I question that it was not really a blunder.

Strong positional play will create tactical opportunities. 

Most 1400 level players are losing because they blunder away pieces. Missing the fact that your knight was attacked twice and you failed to realize that you had it defended only once is NOT missing a tactic. 

It is a blunder.

This seems like a weird statement to make, because chess is 100% tactics. There's literally nothing other than tactics. If you could accurately calculate 100 moves ahead, you would win chess every time. There's literally nothing other than tactics.

We created strategy as a good way to pick between moves that seem fairly equal, and in that way it's a tool and it's a good tool to have.

I maintain that strategic chess is important in low levels because the better your position, the less likely you are to blunder. +1.5 isn't enough for a 1300 player to convert against an engine but he is way more likely to win as his opponent has much fewer moves that maintain evaluation than he does.

Funny, xman, I agree with what you said. I see no contradiction, other than what seems like definitions. 

Yes, White did have 20.c5! which would have won, but he didn't need to see that. He could have won a clean pawn on c6 with the 26.Rb7 followed by Nd3-b4xc6 idea. Also, I wasn't suggesting that no tactical ability is necessary to win games, although my comment may well suggest that, reading it back. It's more that you only need to cut out counterplay and see some rudimentary tactics (such as how to win a pawn on move 26) to win games.

On my level missing tactics happens a lot.  A good position gives tactical chances. Sometimes we see them, sometimes not. A good position gives away few chanses for our opponents. For example, if a king is open to check, there often are tactics. Non-guarded pieces gives tactical chances.

I agree, although positional blunders I'd also consider tactical mistakes, for the most part, since in the long run they clearly will lead to unfavorable material trade. 

Tactics is most important. However, basic strategic principles (i.e., don't neglect development of your pieces, not recklessly weakening your king) are also important. It is much easier to  blunder when your king is under attack than when your king is safe. If a player's position is very passive and his/her opponent has the initiative, the player is more likely to blunder than the opponent.