I'm with Elubas here.
In my view playing chess is swimming in a sea of tactics. Just because there isn't a knight fork or an h7 sac happening doesn't mean tactics aren't present even in a positional game.
It seems likely there is some confusion in terms.
Are tactics really the way to go?
Sort:
ipcress12 wrote:
I'm with Elubas here.
In my view playing chess is swimming in a sea of tactics. Just because there isn't a knight fork or an h7 sac happening doesn't mean tactics aren't present even in a positional game.
It seems likely there is some confusion in terms.
This thinking can be easily countered. What if in a given position you can't see a tactic. You won't have a clue on what to do if you don't have positional or endgame ideas.
I simply don't agree because it sounds like you are saying that if you don't make mistakes you will see everything which is again unlikely. It's simply not practical to assume that all oversights come from human error. Computers come up with tactics all the time that GMs simply don't look at. GMs are often talking about how they "don't know what's going on." Even Caruana who went 7-0 was missing tactics even though none of his alternative choices can be seen as bad or mistakes at all. They are constantly talking about how they could play better even when everyone thinks they play amazing games anyway. And then you have GMs that actually say that the difference between 2600 GMs and 2700 GMs is their calculation which is frankly a little scary.
But you really don't have to believe anything I'm saying. You can go into any database and look at games between 2000s and 2500s. See how many of the 2000s did not fall prey to tactics and were simply outplayed positionally. See how many of them managed to get into an endgame a pawn down as opposed to the ones that simply lost material in the middlegame. Unless you go out of your way to find such examples you won't find many.
I mean if what you're doing works for you then ok. I'm just saying that while you can improve there is no fail safe system that will work as long as you don't mess up or something.
jambyvedar: I don't think you're understanding me. I'm saying there are always tactics.
Whatever move I play I have to think about my opponent's responses. Probably none of them will win a piece, but some of them may inconvenience my plans. I have to think about those possibilities.
I consider that tactics. Maybe others don't.
All you are saying Titan is that you can never be 100% perfect. I agree. But going from, say, 75% perfect to 90% perfect will save so many games. Also, it has sort of been pointed out before, but even when experts and above make simple mistakes, it's because they are under serious pressure. They're not going to forget about a fork if nothing is going on (class players can occasionally); they might forget about a fork if there are eight other different threats the opponent is making, sure. That's fine. But if you don't recognize patterns, you'll make mistakes in positions where you're opponent is even under severe pressure. That is helping your opponent way too much. It takes a long time to get rid of that tendency (and ok, maybe not 100% get rid of it, but 99.99% or something).
I wholeheartedly appreciate how this game is a mystery to even the very very best. It's a beautiful thing really! But they are very modest people. The basics are not at all a mystery to them. If they miss a "simple" tactic it's because they had to consider thousands of more complicated tactics over the course of the game.
jambyvedar wrote:
ipcress12 wrote:
I'm with Elubas here.
In my view playing chess is swimming in a sea of tactics. Just because there isn't a knight fork or an h7 sac happening doesn't mean tactics aren't present even in a positional game.
It seems likely there is some confusion in terms.
This thinking can be easily countered. What if in a given position you can't see a tactic. You won't have a clue on what to do if you don't have positional or endgame ideas.
There will be tactics. Maybe not in your current position, but trust me, there will be tactics. Many of them. Any time your opponent tries to execute his plan he has to consider what squares he has weakened, possible pins, forks in the future. Every freaking time. And if he makes one of his pieces awkward just for one moment, there may well be a tactical opportunity for the other side that turns the tables. Again I'm not saying tactics is everything. But in general it's just much more fundamental than other things.
"Funny.. Cause it always amazes me to hear a C or B class player tell me that they pound over 100's of 1000's of puzzles in a week, yet they can't break 1800. And then they look at me in disbelief when I tell them I have only seen 1000 puzzles max over 20 years. And yet out class this player by 300-500 points. The question you have to ask yourself is.. If the method you use does not show constant improvement, is it really beneficial?"
It may matter a lot on how they are solved. I think when you solve a puzzle you need to think, what made the tactic work, what went wrong in my thinking process that made me miss the move. Did I assume such and such move simply could not work? Ok, well maybe I should have a more open mind next time. Maybe I assumed a quiet move couldn't be right. Etc etc.
I actually don't solve tactics as its own exercise anymore, though I used to extensively as a class A player. But I think it's important to develop that framework of patterns; they tell you where tactics can possibly be. Doesn't mean you'll always see them, but you just can't afford to lag in the basics. Tactical patterns are your tools to carry out your plans. I used to read that as a 1600 and it sounded strange, but it's true. Learning strategy will be so much more rewarding when you recognize tactical resources as much as you recognize regular moves. That's totally different from just knowing that tactical resources exist; they must be embedded into your head :)
CM: I'm not arguing against disciplined thought processes or for pounding tactics trainers non-stop. I do read Silman, Aagaard et al. I play over annotated GM games trying to follow the trails of their superior thought.
In this thread I have been mostly arguing against those pontificating -- as I hear it -- the notion that endgame study is essential for class players, which has been falsifed by those who reach the 98-99% without it.
Elubas wrote:
All you are saying Titan is that you can never be 100% perfect. I agree. But going from, say, 75% perfect to 90% perfect will save so many games. Also, it has sort of been pointed out before, but even when experts and above make simple mistakes, it's because they are under serious pressure. They're not going to forget about a fork if nothing is going on (class players can occasionally); they might forget about a fork if there are eight other different threats the opponent is making, sure. That's fine. But if you don't recognize patterns, you'll make mistakes in positions where you're opponent is even under severe pressure. That is helping your opponent way too much. It takes a long time to get rid of that tendency (and ok, maybe not 100% get rid of it, but 99.99% or something).
I wholeheartedly appreciate how this game is a mystery to even the very very best. It's a beautiful thing really! But they are very modest people. The basics are not at all a mystery to them. If they miss a "simple" tactic it's because they had to consider thousands of more complicated tactics over the course of the game.
OK maybe we are not talking about the same things. I think you are talking about forks, skewers and things. In that case I can understand. I'm talking about crazy stuff like when a player sacs material for no apparent reason and somehow gets it back 2 or 3 turns later. Those are the tactics that worry me because you not only need to be aware that the ideas are there but you also have to be able to calculate them correctly.
Stuff like this is what makes me appreciate tactics significantly more than I used to.
ipcress12 wrote:
CM: I'm not arguing against disciplined thought processes or for pounding tactics trainers non-stop. I do read Silman, Aagaard et al. I play over annotated GM games trying to follow the trails of their superior thought.
In this thread I have been mostly arguing against those pontificating -- as I hear it -- the notion that endgame study is essential for class players, which has been falsifed by those who reach the 98-99% without it.
Again I debunk this thinking of yours. I know class players who does not have superb tactics(does not solve tactics puzzle everyday) get titles because of their good/great endgame skills. So can I claim now that tactics is not essential for developing players? What we derived from here is that each individual has different reasons for their success at getting a title.Saying that endgame study is not essential for developing players is wrong.
This is my second time around as a chess player. When I was young, I worked hard to play logical, principled chess and I did well enough. I advanced steadily to the 1700s in five years.
But the weak side of my game was tactics which is why I'm hitting them hard now, doing puzzles, forcing myself to play open positions and gambits.
My plan, though, is to phase back to a quieter, more positional style further down the line.
jamby: We're just going to have to agree to disagree then.
ipcress12 wrote:
This is my second time around as a chess player. When I was young, I worked hard to play logical, principled chess and I did well enough. I advanced steadily to the 1700s in five years.
But the weak side of my game was tactics which is why I'm hitting them hard now, doing puzzles, forcing myself to play open positions and gambits.
My plan, though, it is to phase back to a quieter, more positional style further down the line.
That is why I advocate studying all aspects of chess. Endgame, positional play, opening and tactics. Of all these studies, opening study has the lowest priority.
@CM- I did not contradicted my point. There are players who get title by studying a lot off endgame. There are also players who got title because of good tactics. So it's wrong to say that studying endgame is not essential for developing players, because there are lots of players that become good because of endgame study. Can I claim now that tactic study is not essential for developing players because there are players who become good because of endgame? Nope I can't also claim that. Is what I am pointing out clear now to you?
No endgames are not essential. Basic knowledge of endgames will help you attain expert. Basic tactical knowledge will also help you. Is it necessary to understand how and why a tactic is produced to make expert? No.. Simple ideas are all that is necessary.
This post above by CM can be debunked. But there are also players who can't get a title because of their basic knowledge. There are people who only got a title by studying lots of endgames,tactics and positional play. Again each individual are different.
We can't also eliminate pyschological factors like patience, persiverance and courage as ingredients to success. For example player a has better knowledge than player B. But player A can lose for pyschological reason(he might get bored and play carelessly). Or he does not have much focus as a result made bad moves.
To get to expert level, there are people where extensive endgame knowledge is essential. There are also people where tactical ability is essential. There are also people who can get the title with basic understanding. Again this bring individualism.
Nope, tactics aren't the way to go. Just shuffle your pieces back and forth until your opponent makes a mistake. That's what Carlsen does.
No what I mean is your post can be debunked. For me the essential thing is attach to individualism.
To get to expert level, there are people where extensive endgame knowledge is essential. There are also people where tactical ability is essential. There are also people who can get the title with basic understanding. Again this bring individualism. It's much better to say this essential thing really depends on the person.
CookieMonster wrote:
I don't agree. I think essential is too strong of a word to attach it to an individual. Because there could still be other ways that individual "could" have made expert. Just he found one. You are just assuming that because he used that one method it became essential. Which is wrong. It is obvious that it helped him to attain this knowledge. But I doubt it was essential knowledge for that player.
Again.. Sorry.. You have not "debunked" me. Although far be it, I am not disagreeing that the knowledge is helpful, just don't agree with your wording. You'll have to live with it.
Well sorry I think i debunked you.If you think I did not debunk you so be it. But I think i debunked you. But it's also plain wrong to say that endgame study is not essential for developing players.Sorry but I know you are hard headed CM. That is why you leave chessforum.org.
I never told that knowledge of these endgame will put someone into stardom level.
jambyvedar: No one here has said that.
The persistent claim made by you and others is that endgame study is essential for developing players.
If players can make it to 2160 without basic endgame knowledge, it's just not essential for advancing as a class player.
Endgame knowledge is useful, of course, just as knowing an opening line is useful if you find yourself in that position or one similar.
But in any case, your progress as a player is not crippled. You'll just do what you do ordinarily in an unfamiliar chess position -- play as well as you can and that may be good enough. One commenter here claimed that he discovered the solution to the Lucena Position over the board.
It's essential to know algebra before you study calculus. It's not essential to know the Lucena Position before you reach Master.
I can say the same scenario like you do. I have seen players that are not superb on tactics but has great endgame skills become 2000. Endgame knowlegde is essential for developing players. In fact you can also see a lot saying that detailed study of endgame made them titled players. So what we can derieved from here? Each invidual has their own reason for being successfull. So saying that endgame study is not essential for developing player is wrong.