Of course, bear in mind who's saying this. Doubtful if Karpov or Petrosian would ever try to make that point...
Exactly ! Listen to young Magnus explaining on TV that he just "feels" what the right move is in most positions... 
Kasparov is an fantastic calculator, but certainly not as strong as Magnus in equal and calm positions...
One of the best comments I have heard was made by either Andy Solits or Larry Evans was regarding this frequently quoted statement that "chess is 99% tacitcs". The retort was something like "its not that chess is 99% tactics its just what you spend 99% of your time doing."
Interesting considering this Kasparov quote:
"Tactics involve calculations that can tax the human brain, but when you boil them down, they are actually the simplest part of chess and are almost trivial compared to strategy."
Considering some of his other comments, the strategic understanding of the common IM Kasparov probably deems as less than basic :p I think his comments (as in the OP) are worth taking with a grain of salt.
As for computers, they weren't very good until their calculations got better (not more of them). I throw this in with better strategic understanding... in any case they certainly calculate less today than deep blue and are much stronger.
Original Poster.
Though in the above case it actually means "Original Post."
Yes, you're right. Makes quite a difference which you apply here.
I don't want people to get confused here.
You can only win tactically once you achieve a strategically superior position, even if that just means having better development than your opponent - although normally it means forcing the other sides pieces to less than optimal squares in order to prevent advantageous pawn pushes or knight manoeuvres for example. A lot of the old maxims about what constitutes 'good and bad' positions has been thrown out of the window since the advent of engine analysis though. A lot of games I play over now have pawn structures for one or both players that would cause Tarrasch to faint, but they are often main line theory!
today according to wikipedia and google the number of GMs in the entire world is 1347 and your basically telling me with tactics alone i can become stronger than over 300 GMs ??? come on really
today according to wikipedia and google the number of GMs in the entire world is 1347 and you're basically telling me with tactics alone i can become stronger than over 300 GMs ??? come on really
I am not telling anyone anything. I'm just quoting Garry Kasparov, and found it astounding.
There ya go, so Kaspy says you can be a weak GM... to him that level of player is pretty poor (considering his super-simuls an opinion that's probably justified).
IMHO sometimes quotes from strong players have to be taken in context... their adjectives such as strong, weak, knowledgeable, skilled, primary, secondary, are all coming form a different level of the game. For example if a top 100 players says they don't know endgames "at all" they may mean beyond what they consider the very most basic fundamental knowledge. To a new player the MOST basic knowledge is how to mate with king and queen. To a GM it may be something akin to the 200 blue diagrams in Dvortsky's endgame book (which Dvortsky says himself are the must know positions before you get into any theory)... and for all we know that top 100 player may mean he only knows the basic theory too :p
So when he says "without any great understanding of the strategic niceties of the game" he may mean they only know what he considers some average value of understanding... nothing too deep, and again considering he could match 4-5 weak GMs at once this sentiment is understandable.
In our context as amateurs, I think it's likely that a 2500 rated GMs strategic understanding is beyond what most of us will ever have and certainly beyond the basic strategic lessons you see printed in the 100s of books aimed at our level... even if only because they've memorized a zillion positions and the common plans associated with those positions heh. And it's true where we might be struggling to break a position down, a GM just opens up their long term memory and pulls out a manual.
"Some players become very strong indeed and can achieve ratings that place them in the top 1,000 in the world without any great understanding of the strategic niceties of the game.”
I am still astounded and dumbstruck by this statement. By the way, thank you all for the many outstanding contributions to this subject!
In Learn Chess Tactics – Discover the secrets of how to win chess games by Grand Master John Nunn, this famous author says something kind of similar to Kasparov’s “top 1000 in the world,” that definitely makes my head spin!
Excerpt from the Introduction
“We will define a tactic to be a short-term operation, using forcing moves, which aims for an immediate concrete gain (such as winning material or mate). Most chess games are decided by tactics. At higher levels, long-term strategic thinking is also important, but even amongst grandmasters tactics predominate. Those who enjoy rapid or blitz chess will already be aware that the faster the time-limit, the more the balance shifts towards tactics. At lower levels, tactics are especially prevalent and the quickest way for most players to achieve better results is to improve their tactical ability.” – GM John Nunn
“…but even amongst grandmasters tactics predominate?”
When I view grandmaster games, it looks like 100% strategy, from beginning to end. I don’t see any tactical blows, i.e., White’s knight forks Black’s rooks. GM games appear to follow this overall strategy: accumulate small advantages along the way until the other side’s position crumbles. Where are the tactics?
Chess.com member paulgottlieb answered this question in my topic, It’s Better Not to be a GM.
I said, “A GM, or any lesser titled player is consumed with the idea of winning a pawn, or far worse, drawing with Black for the 1/2 point. How boring can that be? I would think, a lot.”
Paul Gottlieb replied, “The idea that top GMs are only interested in winning a pawn is completely wrong. All the top GMs are superb tacticians, more than capable of unleashing a brilliant sacrificial attack on any opponent whose alertness falters. But the opponent is also a superb tactician, and he's not going to allow that brilliant sacrifice. In fact, the reason that the GM is able to win that pawn is because of the threat of tactical fireworks. The opponent avoids the combination by giving up a pawn, and the brilliancy exists only in the minds of the two players, and in the notes.”
I like what NM Dan Heisman says in his book, Back to Basics: Tactics, “Tactics don’t just happen! They flow from superior positions. So if you don’t have a tactic, it’s best to follow good general guidelines and make your pieces and pawns safe, strong, and active.”
It sounds like when the position is quiet, it helps to know some strategy. Heck, even as a beginner, I actually had a plan (strategy) in one game. It rarely happens. I did need to know a few tactics to see the plan, and I needed to spot the tactic when it happened.
In the game below, after seeing a bunch of pawns in the center, my plan was to park my bishop on b7, exchange the center pawns to open the a8-h1 diagonal for this bishop, and then launch a kingside attack. It worked, but I needed to see the tactics (double attack and mating pattern) to win.
It's my understanding that computers really have no ability to strategize whatsoever, but that doesn't mean they don't consider positional aspects of the game. By strategize I basically mean the ability to come up with a plan through logical thinking. Computers just calculate and pick the line with the highest numerical evaluation which is based on positional and material factors. This is not strategy.
Ah, the subtle difference between strategic and positional chess... how do they say it, tactics and positional play are two sides of the same coin while strategy is a different animal?
I remember some odd quote about Petrosian being a fantastic strategist, but not as good positionally.
If Kaspy was talking about the finer points of strategy (leaving positional chess out of it) his comments make more sense. The dividing line is muddy to me though, and meaning lost in translation makes it even harder to tell what some great players are trying to tell us :)
It's my understanding that computers really have no ability to strategize whatsoever, but that doesn't mean they don't consider positional aspects of the game. By strategize I basically mean the ability to come up with a plan through logical thinking. Computers just calculate and pick the line with the highest numerical evaluation which is based on positional and material factors. This is not strategy.
+1
It's my understanding that computers really have no ability to strategize whatsoever, but that doesn't mean they don't consider positional aspects of the game. By strategize I basically mean the ability to come up with a plan through logical thinking. Computers just calculate and pick the line with the highest numerical evaluation which is based on positional and material factors. This is not strategy.
+1
You haven't played Hal 9000.
I understand positional play as short maneuvers aimed at a specific objective (weakening an opposing pawn; gaining central space; improving the positioning of a piece, etc.).
I think of strategic play as setting longer-term goals (setting up a series of exchanges so that one can exploit their queenside pawn majority; playing against an entire complex of weak squares on a color; etc.)
I believe the quote about Petrosian that wafflemaster brings up comes from Kramnik's interview on his predecessors (the Classical World Champions from Steinitz through Kasparov). Petrosian seemed more concerned about finding an overall strategy for a position than carrying out an endless series of short maneuvers, which is basically what Karpov did...
Indeed. The top engines today are what they are due to significant advances in programming strategic planning into the "minds" of the beasts, in addition to nearly flawless tactical calculation.
Deep Blue employed brute force (tactics) primarily, and ran on a super computer. It could beat my iPad or my phone, but stands no chance against a notebook computer today because the software is vastly better, and includes strategical concepts.