A GM playing almost without tactics on 1-2 mins/ game can win most amateurs on 1-2 hours/ game.
Why? Understanding of chess/ position/ intution are x10 times more important than tactics.
Well yeah I think that is partly true in the quick games, however if you watch a player like Nakamura playing blitz or even bullet here on chess.com he always seems to win due to being tactically superior.
Meh, not really.
I've seen him hang rooks and queens, but his GM opponents miss the opportunity. I've seen Erik Hansen playing live online, curse at himself for missing simple tactics vs HIkaru.
The point is if you put someone under enough pressure strategically, then they'll blunder 1, 2, or 3 move tactics even if they're GMs. That's why it's misleading to tell people things like "only study tactics until 2000" It's a load of crap.
In the 2013 world chess championship match, there was a double blunder. IIRC Carlsen blundered a pawn to a simple 2-3 move tactic, and Anand missed it. Because they were busy worrying about other elements (and I assume a championship match is psychologically difficult)...
but anyway, the point is clear, it's not really all about tactics.
Well, sure they blunder but usually I find when watching top level games that the player who is superior tactically is the one who wins. Obviously tactics is not everything, but you often see game that could have easily been won if a super simple tactic was not missed.
Their tactics are super impressive... but the 20 move that come before that impress me too.
They obviously know tons of ideas and patterns that let them put on a lot of pressure in almost any opening, any position type, etc.
Do Tactics check when you have extra time.
A GM playing almost without tactics on 1-2 mins/ game can win most amateurs on 1-2 hours/ game.
Why? Understanding of chess/ position/ intution are x10 times more important than tactics.
Well yeah I think that is partly true in the quick games, however if you watch a player like Nakamura playing blitz or even bullet here on chess.com he always seems to win due to being tactically superior.
Meh, not really.
I've seen him hang rooks and queens, but his GM opponents miss the opportunity. I've seen Erik Hansen playing live online, curse at himself for missing simple tactics vs HIkaru.
The point is if you put someone under enough pressure strategically, then they'll blunder 1, 2, or 3 move tactics even if they're GMs. That's why it's misleading to tell people things like "only study tactics until 2000" It's a load of crap.
In the 2013 world chess championship match, there was a double blunder. IIRC Carlsen blundered a pawn to a simple 2-3 move tactic, and Anand missed it. Because they were busy worrying about other elements (and I assume a championship match is psychologically difficult)...
but anyway, the point is clear, it's not really all about tactics.
Well, sure they blunder but usually I find when watching top level games that the player who is superior tactically is the one who wins. Obviously tactics is not everything, but you often see game that could have easily been won if a super simple tactic was not missed.
Their tactics are super impressive... but the 20 move that come before that impress me too.
They obviously know tons of ideas and patterns that let them put on a lot of pressure in almost any opening, any position type, etc.
Agreed!