Chess is 1% ....

If chess is 99% tactics, what’s the 1%?

Ask anybody else they'll say Endgames.

Ask me I'll say Showing off at parties

I suppose that logically following this statement, the 1% would include everything else helpful in chess (openings, endgames, "positional" chess and so on). This is one reason I greatly disagree with the "99% tactics" concept. Sure, I understand that tactics (specifically pattern recognition) are greatly important in chess, but 99% is far too high of an exaggeration. The average chess game length is 40 moves (80 if you count the opponent's as moves as well, but accurately this is really just half a turn). Let us imagine a 50 move chess game (100 "moves" if counting opponent responses as separate data points). This means that statistically 49 1/2 (99%) of the moves were of tactical nature; I think this reductio ad absurdum just shows that 99% tactics is simply incorrect. 

Often times in chess, the better move is a developing and positional idea - not a weak one move tactical threat. It is typically only after one side sets up a superior position that the momentum transforms itself into a tactical flare (often a direct attack, or at least a quick tactical blow to win material).

Due to this, I believe that some of the strongest moves are positional "silent" (hard to find usually) moves that makes tactics in the future possible. You will not play great, sound chess if you look for tactics in every (or 99%) move(s). A good chess player will adapt according to the board position. If the position takes a tactical nature, a strong player will follow this; however, there are simply many positions where no "tactics" exist, and in these scenarios a strong chess player should recognize this and adapt to the situation. 

Endgame positions are a rich part of the game of chess, as are openings, or psychology etc.; it is quite laughable to think that these (and everything else not about tactics) can be crammed into 1% of everything of chess.

Tactics and pattern recognition is without a doubt of huge assistance to a chess player, but I may argue perhaps only 30% of chess is pure tactical ability. I am simply mentioning a percentage to work with, and will gladly adjust the percentage if I get evidence to do so. There is simply much more to the game we all love, than just tactics. 99% tactics? Yeah right; these people were clearly not staticians or simply blind to stepping back to see the bigger picture. Maybe this is a bit harsh; at the very least, the people claiming 99% were speaking hyperbolically, and perhaps eavesdroppers took this literally. 

I am interested to see what percentage  chess players actually give to "tactics". Maybe a part of this is in the play style. Ask Tal or Alekhine followers and maybe they may go as high as to say 70%, but I have trouble taking percentages that seriously when they outright neglect other elements of chess.

I don’t buy the premise. Even chess engines use evaluation functions, opening books, and end game tables to strengthen their play. And since there is no hope we can calculate like a chess engine, we are even more dependent on end game principles, opening principles, strategic principles, positional principles, etc.

It is pretty trivial to show positions where computer engines, which are tactical monsters, evaluate a position very wrong.

The most important part of any scientific pie chart...

the 1% "other"

I think the "chess is 99% tactics" nonsense came about as a way to encourage students to study tactics. The majority of games below class A, and even at that level too, are indeed decided by tactical mistakes/miscalculations. And of course we all know that tactics are the primary method of improvement for beginning players.. but 99%? No. Positional evaluation and planning, openings, endgames, knowledge of typical pawn structures, priyomes, etc.. There are many aspects to the game and when it comes to a player's development, especially at the advanced end of the spectrum, they ALL play a significant role.

Considering the responses, how do we improve on this 1%. Obviously, 99% is a gross exaggeration. Tactics don’t appear at most every move. How do we improve our 1%. What’s a better percentage rather than than the 99% inflation?

Maybe the great majority of conscious thought during a game is calculation. That makes more sense at least... but yeah, chess is not 99% this thing or that thing.

 

Anyway, to improve everything else, you read books, do analysis, play long games, all that usual stuff.

Tactics very often come as a result of good positional play. For a tactic to win a game--one must already have an advantage.

Inspiration.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/quotchess-is-1-inspiration-and-99-tacticsquot

I disagree with everything you said. In my opinion...

Chess is 10% luck, 20% skill
15% concentrated power of will
5% pleasure, 50% pain
And 100% reason to play the game

 

1% total confusion.

Bourbon.

 

But really, more like 30%.

Chess is at least 100000% tactics. Positional play is a fancy word for tactical arrangements.

More seriously tactics are like health: you can't actually measure and realize their value unless you lack them.

For strong/titled players who spot them naturally like they breeze tactics are worth shit but the rest of us blunderers who don't have a magical tactical radar embedded in their brains, just avoiding losing material will drain a lot of our mental energy, I mean just processing what's fucking happening on the board. This is where the 99% comes from: this is what it takes to me not to lose pieces and take advantage of what the other player does.

 

This thread is like billionaires saying that money is useless in life.

The thing is, you can lack opening knowledge and make some positional mistakes in a chess game and still get away with it and beat most amateurs (under 2000) if you are tactically razor sharp and an accurate calculator.

On the other hand, you can know every main opening 12 moves deep, and know about advanced positional concepts and endgame theory, but if you are completely inept at tactics, miscalculating forced sequences, missing 2 or 3 move combinations, unaware of mating patterns, and unable to spot critical zwichenzugs then you will lose to most decent club players despite your immense library of chess knowledge.

Now I understand that in real life, players with such an imbalanced skillset are probably very uncommon, but it does illustrate that tactics are probably the number one factor in deciding a result between amateur players. 99% is definitely an exaggeration, but I’d say for players under 2000, probably 80% or even 85% is realistic.

1% intuition?

sorry to interrupt but look:

sorry to interrupt but look:

You're overlooking the fact that losing kids happen to all kind of people regardless their wealth. So a poor man will suffer from the loss of his kid an in addition from the lack of money. Problems tend to cumulate. You cannot underrate/overrate costs, you just don't decide.

 

As for tactics I was referring to all the calculation you have to do, not only seeing some fancy way to win. Spotting the good moves of your opponent, being able to notice undefended/en prise piece of both players, defusing traps, assessing realistically what is going on instead of handwaving... 

 

 

The 2000 rated players and higher advise if you’re below 1600-1800 or so, study tactics and forget about openings, etc. After reading these posts I’m not sure that’s good advice.

Solving tactic puzzles do a lot more for new players than just learning tactical patterns. They're a fine way to build visualization skills, and form good calculation habits (habitually checking for forcing moves first).

 

It's also immediately beneficial to new players who typically win and lose their games on basic observation and calculation errors.

 

But you can't gain 1000 rating points just studying 1 thing. Lets say you get about 100, ok good, now study endgames, strategy, etc. After gaining a few 100 more points you go back and do tactics again.

 

Anyway, tactics tend to be the most important activity beginners often do, and memorizing opening theory tends to be the least important activity beginners often do, but at the same time improvement is multifaceted, and you should aim, at least in the long term, to have done a little bit of everything.