Forums

Are tactics really the way to go?

Sort:
dpnorman
NM dpnorman
Show your flair!
Feb 5, 2015
0
#81

I think studying endgames is overrated. I have spent minimal time studying endgames as my rating has increased from U1000 to 1800ish in the last two years. It's probably useful, and I know Philidor and Lucena and some pawn breakthrough stuff, but otherwise it doesn't come up a whole lot in practical play IMO.

I_Am_Second
I_Am_Second
Feb 5, 2015
0
#82
CookieMonster wrote:
dpnorman wrote:

I think studying endgames is overrated. I have spent minimal time studying endgames as my rating has increased from U1000 to 1800ish in the last two years. It's probably useful, and I know Philidor and Lucena and some pawn breakthrough stuff, but otherwise it doesn't come up a whole lot in practical play IMO.

It would seem that is the consensus. Have you seen Silman's book?

My take is that if you think "minimal" endgame study is enough, then your either winning or losing before the endgame. 

dpnorman
NM dpnorman
Show your flair!
Feb 5, 2015
0
#83

I own Silman's book.

TheGreatOogieBoogie
TheGreatOogieBoogie
Feb 5, 2015
0
#84
CookieMonster wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
dpnorman wrote:

When I beat a player more than 200 points beneath me, it is almost invariably because he misses something tactical. When I lose to a player more than 200 points above me, it is often (although less frequently) because I miss something tactical. Therefore tactics are extremely important.

i suppose it depends on what sort of moves you play (many players especially weaker ones like to play tactically double edged moves)...but most of the time theres just are not terribly relevant tactics in a given chess position. The attempt to force tactics would backfire usually...especially if your opponent has played in a logical way. a position needs to 'lose balance' before tactical operations even appear. playing consistent logical moves maintains balance. And even if you miss/ignore a tactical killing blow, you can still probably win the game with simple chess if your opponent is not being logical.

I agree with this and have seen it in my games with class players. As long as I have not lost my mind. I have been known to lose my mind sometimes lately and  revert back to 'class' mentality. It seems to happen about one to two in 50 games and keeps me u2000 USCF. But I am also working on that aspect. Hopefully soon I can say I am rid of it.

 

I can actually pull out two games recently where I simply out played a 1900 and 2000 in logical fashion. And in the same tournament I can pull out a game where I beat a 1600 after losing a piece because I reverted back to class mentality. Quite remarkable I can do that. But really want to get rid of it so I can grow.

What about online coaching?  Have any experience with Tiger Lilov?  I'm thinking of taking lessons from him or another coach.  I'll do the one hour session with video recording and a PGN annotations of games sent.  I have an idea of some wins I want to send but losses where the root problem isn't obvious is harder than wins where strengths can be classed. I'm doing 4 wins and 4 losses.  The idea is to root out my weaknesses.  Nimzowitsch spoke of weeds in our thought process that we need to root out! 

Though even wins have ways of showing weaknesses:

One of the wins I'm sending so it can help contribute to my strengths profile as I felt this was one of my most instructive games.

leiph18
leiph18
Feb 5, 2015
0
#85

Gotta go with pfren on the endgame thing.

I was staying around 1500-1600 for a few years, then I read Dvoretsky's endgame book. Of course it's way too much to absorb it all after 1 reading, but you can bet I learned a lot. I gained a few hundred rating points over the next few months, but even better, I understood a lot more about middlegames, and even many opening decisions.

If you have a talent for calculation and you're willing to work hard for tactics at the board every minute, then I don't doubt you can get a very nice rating without endgames. Maybe even close to 2500. But you're not going to understand much, and a much more efficient use to your time (no matter your rating) would be to get a well rounded education.

Chess_Troller
Chess_Troller
Feb 5, 2015
0
#86

Endgames books are for the cat! Poor waste of money until you reach a high level. Learn basic endgames(pawn endings, simple rook endings) and not more. I mean what the hell does it bring you to know how to win a certain rook endgame when you never reach such a position and lose the game after 15 moves? Even at higher levels its very rare that you get a very difficult endgame on the board, mostly one side is winning and just has to convert the advantage in the endgame into a full point. So dont waste time and money in stupid endgame(books).

dpnorman
NM dpnorman
Show your flair!
Feb 5, 2015
0
#87

I agree with the above. I imagine once you hit 2000 it changes, but even so, there are masters (Reb included) who have never seriously studied endgames.

leiph18
leiph18
Feb 5, 2015
0
#88
Chess_Troller wrote:

Endgames books are for the cat! Poor waste of money until you reach a high level. Learn basic endgames(pawn endings, simple rook endings) and not more. I mean what the hell does it bring you to know how to win a certain rook endgame when you never reach such a position lose after 15 moves? Even at higher levels its very rare that you get a very difficult endgame on the board, mostly one side is winning and just has to convert the advantage In the endgame into a full point. So dont waste time and money in stupid endgame(books).

I think you're making the same mistake Reb did.

I don't think anyone is saying study the very difficult endgames. Seems to me everyone is saying you need to know the basic endgames though. Especially rook and pure pawn endgames.

But then at the end you say don't waste your money? No one is saying spend a month perfecting BB v N. But just know enough that in the middlegame when you reach a decision point, you'll be able to make a reasonable transition.

"But class players are lost by move 20 anyway" Sure, but it's not just about endgames. I've had a bad position, then traded into the best of bad endgames, but because I'm putting up resistance I manage to draw. Or we go into a drawn endgame and I can win. These are a lot of half and full points. And IMO it's just the basics.

leiph18
leiph18
Feb 5, 2015
0
#89
dpnorman wrote:

I agree with the above. I imagine once you hit 2000 it changes, but even so, there are masters (Reb included) who have never seriously studied endgames.

Forgot his name, but there was some 2600 GM who said he never "seriously" studied the endgame.

But you have to understand what they're comparing themselves to. Maybe he spent 1000s of hours with a dozen different endgame books, but to the 2600 player they don't consider it as serious as most of their peers.

yureesystem
yureesystem
Feb 5, 2015
0
#90

          

TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:

yureesystem wrote:

The first three goals to any chess player is to learn elementary endgames, basics tactics and become a good attacker. A lot chess players still have not learn basics and stay low rated for life. Tactics is one the hardest to master, so yes, one should focus on tactics. Duh!! Most players are weak in tactics and they don't attack well and also weak in the endgame; even otb expert (2000-2199 Elo), they are weak in the basic endgame. Even if a low rated player is has some understanding in basic middlegame and strategy, if they are weak in tactics they will lose to low rated player who is stronger attacker and decent tactics.

I have to respectfully disagree.  Tactics are probably the most studied thing in chess, or second place behind openings at least.  It's also why I have three books on defence: New Art of Defence in Chess, How to Defend in Chess, and Aagard's Practical Chess Defence.  I'd say they know tactics but not how and where to look for them because of a positional deficiency.  Alekhine is a great rolemodel in this regard as his combinations were played within the context of building up his position.  The accumulation of small advantages and pursuing strategies come first, the big move comes after all that. 

I agree however that many players don't attack well, but such players are usually 1700 USCF and below. 

As to endgames, well that varies.  I'm quite aware of many themes such as centralizing the queen, securing open files, transformation of advantages, small majorities tend to be worth more than larger ones (I think because larger ones are easier to neutralize due to g4/g5 or h4/h5 advances), queenside majority typically being better due to both sides kingside castling being the norm, rooks belong behind passed pawns, either your own or the opponent's, opposite colored bishop endings initiative is far more important than material, rook activity is worth more than material in rook endings, in bishop vs. knight endings one should play for zugzwang, and such knowledge makes the candidate move selection that much more streamlined. 

Positional chess at its base is preventing the opponent's freeing pawn advances with everything else such as open files, weak squares and color complexes, bishop without a counterpart, pawn structure, bishop against a knight, bishop pair, activity, etc.   

 

I love your articles and I also acknowledge your accumunlative chess knowledge.  What I mention is from experience in chess clubs and tournaments. My expert friend had a chess team and invite me to play in his team against other teams, I told my friend I had not play otb chess for awhile and I was rusty in the opening but he insist I join his team because he needed another player. I told my friend I just study tactics and felt unprepare for the team tournament. I played first board I won against two 2100 player, one 1400 player, 1700  woman from Russian and lost to two masters in the last two rounds; not bad for a player who did play for awhile. In one my loses I realize my endgame technique was poor against master who rated 2300 uscf. I decided to study endgame and chose Silman  Endgame book to learn how to play a better endgame. Learn a lot the basic endgame and test my expert friend on their knowledge in the endgame, to my disappointment my expert friends were lacking. here one position my strong expert friend lack who was rated 2160  uscf.

In this endgame position it is draw and if black doesn't know how to draw, white can win. My expert friend who is 2160 uscf did not know how to draw. Very basic endgame. 

 

My expert friend who 2160 uscf is a lot stronger than me even though my endgame knowledge is better than his. His highest rating is 2160 uscf and my is 2110 uscf. My friend has beat more masters than me, his tactics is superior to mine. My opening and positional understanding is superior to his but he is a lot strong than me, because he can attack like a master and his tactics very strong but his endgame sucks and that is why  he is only an expert.  His tactical trainer has been in the 2400 and now in the low 2300. Tactics do matter not endgame, positional understanding or even strategy; the player who has the stronger tactics will win over player who is weak in tactics. 

 

Omega_Doom
Omega_Doom
Feb 5, 2015
0
#91

yureesystem. Let me disagree on your statement that tactics are the most studied. I think it's more about talent if we don't talk about easy peasy ones. Lets take for example Mikhail Tal. I know it's silly example but it shows the power of tactics. And it's really hard to learn his style because after sacriface he often went for a calm move and this move not so easy to spot. About your drawish position. I don't know but it doesn't look hard for me although i'm not even 2000. Just move your black king g7, e7, d7, c7 then move rook to a5 and move king to b6. It's just simple plan and i'm sure everyone can find it without learning in advance.

ipcress12
ipcress12
Feb 5, 2015
0
#92

yureesystem: Good post. I'm confused, though, on which parts are quotes and which are your responses.

I_Am_Second
I_Am_Second
Feb 5, 2015
0
#93
Omega_Doom wrote:

yureesystem. Let me disagree on your statement that tactics are the most studied. I think it's more about talent if we don't talk about easy peasy ones. Lets take for example Mikhail Tal. I know it's silly example but it shows the power of tactics. And it's really hard to learn his style because after sacriface he often went for a calm move and this move not so easy to spot. About your drawish position. I don't know but it doesn't look hard for me although i'm not even 2000. Just move your black king g7, e7, d7, c7 then move rook to a5 and move king to b6. It's just simple plan and i'm sure everyone can find it without learning in advance.

No offense, but your analysis shows you dont know it. 

VLaurenT
VLaurenT
Show your flair!
Feb 5, 2015
0
#94
Omega_Doom wrote:

yureesystem. Let me disagree on your statement that tactics are the most studied. I think it's more about talent if we don't talk about easy peasy ones. Lets take for example Mikhail Tal. I know it's silly example but it shows the power of tactics. And it's really hard to learn his style because after sacriface he often went for a calm move and this move not so easy to spot. About your drawish position. I don't know but it doesn't look hard for me although i'm not even 2000. Just move your black king g7, e7, d7, c7 then move rook to a5 and move king to b6. It's just simple plan and i'm sure everyone can find it without learning in advance.

When your king reaches e7, white will play a7, which is difficult to meet... (he threatens Rh8 Rxa7 Rh7+ picking the a7 rook).

pfren
IM pfren
Show your flair!
Feb 5, 2015
0
#95
hicetnunc wrote:
Omega_Doom wrote:

yureesystem. Let me disagree on your statement that tactics are the most studied. I think it's more about talent if we don't talk about easy peasy ones. Lets take for example Mikhail Tal. I know it's silly example but it shows the power of tactics. And it's really hard to learn his style because after sacriface he often went for a calm move and this move not so easy to spot. About your drawish position. I don't know but it doesn't look hard for me although i'm not even 2000. Just move your black king g7, e7, d7, c7 then move rook to a5 and move king to b6. It's just simple plan and i'm sure everyone can find it without learning in advance.

When your king reaches e7, white will play a7, which is difficult to meet... (he threatens Rh8 Rxa7 Rh7+ picking the a7 rook).

It's easy to meet it: he can resign.

The case of course is included in any decent "useless" endgame manual.

KirbyCake
KirbyCake
Feb 5, 2015
0
#96

actually with the pawn on a6 it requires probably 2200+ USCF knowledge to know the drawing formation ( which i forgot )

i think it has something to do with checking and then repositioning the rook correctly


if you think you can draw this endgame, you probably don't

I_Am_Second
I_Am_Second
Feb 5, 2015
0
#97
pfren wrote:
hicetnunc wrote:
Omega_Doom wrote:

yureesystem. Let me disagree on your statement that tactics are the most studied. I think it's more about talent if we don't talk about easy peasy ones. Lets take for example Mikhail Tal. I know it's silly example but it shows the power of tactics. And it's really hard to learn his style because after sacriface he often went for a calm move and this move not so easy to spot. About your drawish position. I don't know but it doesn't look hard for me although i'm not even 2000. Just move your black king g7, e7, d7, c7 then move rook to a5 and move king to b6. It's just simple plan and i'm sure everyone can find it without learning in advance.

When your king reaches e7, white will play a7, which is difficult to meet... (he threatens Rh8 Rxa7 Rh7+ picking the a7 rook).

It's easy to meet it: he can resign.

The case of course is included in any decent "useless" endgame manual.

I learned that when i was a C player.

VLaurenT
VLaurenT
Show your flair!
Feb 5, 2015
0
#98

For those interested :

http://en.chessbase.com/post/karsten-mueller-understanding-the-vancura-draw

pfren
IM pfren
Show your flair!
Feb 5, 2015
0
#99
KirbyCake wrote:

actually with the pawn on a6 it requires probably 2200+ USCF knowledge to know the drawing formation ( which is forgot )

i think it has something to do with checking and then repositioning the took correctly

My "advanced" group of students at the local club (around 12 years of age, all rated less than 1500) know how to make a draw from there. In that particular endgame it's easy: No calculation is needed, just the drawing method (which is unique). See the previous post.

KirbyCake
KirbyCake
Feb 5, 2015
0
#100
pfren wrote:
KirbyCake wrote:

actually with the pawn on a6 it requires probably 2200+ USCF knowledge to know the drawing formation ( which is forgot )

i think it has something to do with checking and then repositioning the took correctly

My "advanced" group of students at the local club (around 12 years of age, all rated less than 1500) know how to make a draw from there. In that particular endgame it's easy: No calculation is needed, just the drawing method (which is unique). See the previous post.

i think it depends if you've studied the endgame before or not.

if you have, its an easy draw, but if you haven't then you have to work out the method yourself, because simply checking from the a and b-files is going to lose.

some GMs still lose these type of rook endgames, I'm not sure about now since modern GMs probably memorized how to draw any drawable rook endgame.

how do you draw with white king on f6, pawn on f5, rook a7 and black king on g8, rook on g4 with black to move? if you haven't memorized that position you might have trouble.