Another good reason to study tactics
Sort:
I am a chess expert at tactics.!! how about you ?
Oct 17, 2007
0
#4
Yes, I am an advocate of studying tactics each and every day. Unless you are +2200 tactics is really the most important thing and usually the player with the better tactical vision will win the game.
matthelfst,kenttt leung, chesskia, in studying chess tactics, what do each of you feel are the best sioftware for doing so and or books
i'd like to know a study regime, as i am a beginner and look forward to your advice
thanks tony solis (antne003)
email antne003@comcast.net
MattHelfst wrote: Yes, I am an advocate of studying tactics each and every day. Unless you are +2200 tactics is really the most important thing and usually the player with the better tactical vision will win the game.
Positional understanding comes before tactics. Tactics don't happen in a vacuum. Once you have elevated your positional game then working on tactics will have some payoff.
Crash
join my chess group it's called "tactical studies"
The best book I ever saw on tactics--very advanced-- was "Modern Chess Tactics" by Ludek Pachman. Studying that book did a lot for my game.
Nov 1, 2007
0
#9
Crash wrote: MattHelfst wrote: Yes, I am an advocate of studying tactics each and every day. Unless you are +2200 tactics is really the most important thing and usually the player with the better tactical vision will win the game.
Positional understanding comes before tactics. Tactics don't happen in a vacuum. Once you have elevated your positional game then working on tactics will have some payoff.
Crash
Not at all, just try analysing your games with an engine and check the amount of tactics you've missed. Positional play is as much based on tactics than tactics on positional play. Why are you positioning your pieces like that, what particular strategy? It's is a) to create tactical patterns or tactical threats b) to prevent them, and in both cases you need tactical skills.
I'm going to have to second Etienne on this one. Tactics is the basis of any chess understanding as far as I'm concerned. Positional play means nothing without an understanding of the tactics available on the board.
The object of the game, checkmate, is a tactical one, which must give primacy to tactics. However, tactical opportunities do not appear of themselves. Sometimes we are lucky and discover tactics in the position, the combinations seem to leap out at us. But more often, tactical combinations result from a plan, or constantly shifting plans, and plans mean strategy: the art of postioning pieces so that tactics become possible and that the enemies tactics can be answered. Skillful play results from a mix of strategy and tactics, so that one may use tactics, for instance, for positional rather than just for material ends. It is possible, for example, to fork key squares as well as pieces, or to use a threat simply to push an opposing piece into an awkward square. One of my favorite tactics is "indirect defense," leaving pieces or pawns apparently undefended but which are immune from capture because of the tactical combination that would result; this has the strategic effect of freeing pieces for attack that would otherwise be held down to defense. This is the way strategy and tactics intertwine like the fingers of two hands.
Nov 1, 2007
0
#12
if studying tactics/ and being good at tactics was the main thing in chess the world would be full of chess grandmasters, the world is full of chess fans who have being playing and studying tactics for most of their lives, many chess fans out there know so many tactical games/traps by memory, they could put many grandmasters to shame in a competition on who gives the best chess tactics lectures, I personaly Know a guy who everytime he sees a tactical theme he can relate it imidiately to a historic game giving you all the data related to the game and replaying the game by memory showing you exactely where in the game the similar tactical theme happened
The reason knowledge of tactics does not make grandmasters or even masters is because in the upper levels of chess everyone is good at tactics, everyone can calculate lengthy combinations, it is the price of entry. So then differences in strength tend to come from depth of positional understanding and depth of technical proficiency in all phases of the game.
Nov 1, 2007
0
#14
Ricardo_Morro wrote: The reason knowledge of tactics does not make grandmasters or even masters is because in the upper levels of chess everyone is good at tactics, everyone can calculate lengthy combinations, it is the price of entry. So then differences in strength tend to come from depth of positional understanding and depth of technical proficiency in all phases of the game.
there is some true on what you say, but the main reason why the world don't have more experts or above master level chess players is due to how we use criteria when deciding for a move over another, most chess fans's criteria for deciding/chosing a move over another is based on the fact that most of them/us !? can't resist the temptation of chosing a weaker tactical move over another more solid and stronger one which does not contain a immediate tactical threat and would be rather part of a longer term plan, longer term plans sometimes involve how strong a chess player's technique is, and how well he knows chess as a whole in all its phases including the endgame
note: the price of entry has nothing to do with it
Nov 1, 2007
0
#15
DeepNf3 wrote: if studying tactics/ and being good at tactics was the main thing in chess the world would be full of chess grandmasters, the world is full of chess fans who have being playing and studying tactics for most of their lives, many chess fans out there know so many tactical games/traps by memory, they could put many grandmasters to shame in a competition on who gives the best chess tactics lectures, I personaly Know a guy who everytime he sees a tactical theme he can relate it imidiately to a historic game giving you all the data related to the game and replaying the game by memory showing you exactely where in the game the similar tactical theme happened
What I am saying is that positional skills are dependant on tactics. While tactics are dependant on positional skills as it's what's used to create to tactics or threats of tactics. They both rely on each other. Often you even need tactics to create a more favorable position. Being good in tactic is not everything you need to be able to create the tactical patterns (for example the rook on the 7th file might not lead to immediate tactics but is strong as it create threats of tactics). Positional skills is to know how to create/prevent tactics, and tactical skills is to be able to see and execute those tactics.
At beginner's level however, it's better to concentrate on tactics as before starting to create/prevent tactics you need to be able to spot and execute them and understand the different tactical patterns.
One of you said that you can insert a game of yours into a chess engine and it will analyize the game. What program does this?
fritz
Does all versions do this? Or only newer ones?
Study your tactics positions until you have engrained the pattern in your head. This insures that under time or game conditions pressures; you will be able to quickly recognize the position or a similiar position.This will allow you more time to think about important things.