Chess is 99 percent tactics.

DeepNf3,

 I would respectfully suggest that your comment assumes a lot. I don't remember the GM that said it, I apologize, but it was a quote of the day on chessgames.com. I will try and find it, but a GM said that the difference between GMs and IMs is that GMs are better tactically. They see deeper tactics.

The term deeper tactics may be confusing. I think some people may restrict tactics to "the next 3 moves" or such. This isn't the case in my mind. Tactics envelope any threat in chess in my understanding. A GM may devise a strategy over the next 15 moves which culminates in a tactic.

Perhaps the debate is over the fundamental definition of a tactic. By my thinking a strategy is worthless unless it leads to tactics. Meanwhile, you must always be defending against your opponents tactics. This is my personal belief for tactics being of such high import.

Though it must be said.. ideas like Nimzowich's Restrain Blockade Destroy could hardly be termed tactical.. and yet is of such importance that one should definitely spend time understanding it.

Rereading my post... perhaps "a strategy is worthless unless it leads to tactics" is a bit strong. There are defensive strategies for instance that may not be tactically based. It certainly isn't worthless... but I do believe there are tactics used in defense as well.

Another fascinating thread....       doctor-ice wrote:     Strategy is the mother of tactics. I'm not sure I would agree with that. Strategy is long term planning. Tactics are basically immediate opportunities to gain an advantage. Tactics must be considered in fine-tuning one's strategy, but as often or not, are unrelated and simply based on an opponent's last move or unusual situation.  I think you might be confusing "strategy" with "position." Tactics do flow from position. A person with more space, more central control, fewer weaknesses, etc. usually has more tactical potential.

 

     Albertrud wrote:

     You can have tactics with no strategy, you can't have a strategy with no tactics.

I agree with the first part, but I believe one can have strategy without tactics - however, in realizing that strategy, tactics may play an important part.

 

I would also agree with Oginschile, that GMs are generally more tactically gifted than FMs.  At least, since GMS are stronger than FMs, for one to say that they are as strong tactically, one would have to provide evidence. I'm also not sure it's fair to say that FMs are "stuck" at that level.  There can be  a multitude of reasons why a person may not want, or be able, to expend the necessary effort and time reach a higher goal. 

 

"By my thinking a strategy is worthless unless it leads to tactics."

Would you agree that a strategy that improves one's postition, or weakens an opponent's position, is worth something?  How about a strategy that ultimately creates a passed pawn or even queens a pawn?

 

 

I think people tend to take to much notice of quotes famous people come out with and use it  as fact in conversation with people who are unfamiliar with the game, in the hope of impressing them. I know i do and i'm not implying this thread does,but chess is far to deep to simply say chess is 90% ; 50% ; 99% tactics or whatever to be true.

Yes, my comment that a strategy is worthless unless it leads to a tactic was an overstatement. I looked at that for a while after i wrote it and thought..that was rubbish.

I do think though there may be a discrepancy in people's ideas of what tactics are.. or what is tactical and what is strategic.

It seems some people speak of tactics as if they are just cheap tricks and traps. If one were to assert that tactics makes up 99% of chess, I think we would also have to assume some serious overlapping between tactics and strategy. Positional chess is absolutely more than 1% of chess. I'm not sure i've seen a case of strategy leading to a passed pawn without some kind of tactical threat.

I'd be very curious if someone were to post a game or an exmple of a strategic game or attack that didn't involve tactics, or wasn't based on tactics. That might really be  the key to getting to the bottom of this debate.

Personally, i'm willing to learn a new point of view.

 

I think you're right that there are different conceptions of what the term "tactics" means.

 

And to be fair, I don't think any one definition is necessarily more valid than another. One might think of tactics in the broadest sense in which there is a fuzziness where it blurs into strategy. I tend to think of tactics as something specific, not cheap tricks and traps (which aren't tactics - but employ tactics), but rather listable tools or maneuvers such as forks, skewers, pins, etc. As such, we can say a fork is a tactic, but the threat of a fork is not a tactic. However, if something is protected by the threat of a fork, then it's protected tactically. One GM, I forget who, expressed the idea that all tactics are based on the double-attack. The more I've considered that concept, the more I agree with it.

 

 

 

 

Above is a game fragment between Korchnoi and Karpov in which Korchnoi outplayed his adversary and created a passed pawn which eventually lead to a win. Creating the passed pawn was his plan. Before even starting on the actual moves here, Korchnoi had nullified the kingside to avoid any counterplay from that area. There are no tactical maneuvers, as I would define them, but rather, Korchnoi simply out-thought Karpov and reached a postion where a passed pawn was inevitable.

Excellent example. The definition you give of tactics is clear and concise and I think helps me to understand that my idea of tactics may be a bit muddled.

I think i'll let this definition settle in and find a home somewhere up there in the chaos.

"I think helps me to understand that my idea of tactics may be a bit muddled."

 

Not so.  I don't think one definition is superior to another. I think one can speak broadly of tactics or specifically of tactics.  I just prefer to think in concrete terms.

I think we should adopt a more classical definition of tactics as meaning 'what can I do this move that will produce an immediate and decisive result?' and strategy meaning 'how can I improve my position so that the overall board favors me'. The original distinction between tactics and strategy came from warfare where tactics were the techniques that won particular battles and strategy was the planning that won the war. This definition works for chess.