Chess is all about visualization and being able to see ahead
Chess is all about tactics.
Sort:
Yes but seeing ahead is tactics. Typically, the most difficult tactic is a 5-6 move sequence. They had “daily puzzles” for a period of time when they used to call tactics, “tactics”. Now they are called puzzles, and those puzzle increase in difficulty, and the amount of moves in a sequence. I believe that the daily puzzle is from a game with historical prevalence, that includes a 4+ progressing series of moves. Otherwise the scenarios are computer generated. ( which is the sucky option, hope they draw from history).
-
Zjlm1015
-
Zjlm1015
*Disclaimer*
I have had daily puzzles that are short like 1-3 moves, but it’s less common, and more than likely of historical prevalence
I have had daily puzzles that are short like 1-3 moves, but it’s less common, and more than likely of historical prevalence
Jan 24, 2021
0
#5
Chess is not all about tactics—not by a long shot.
Leela Chess Zero is known largely for her strong positional play and Stockfish up to its recent addition of its neural network component, was known largely for its strong tactical play. Stockfish calculated better than any engine in the world. Leela’s strategy can be summed up as “what move improves my pieces the most, makes your pieces bad, and puts me in the best position to win.”
For the last few years the two engines have been going back and forth winning the most prestigious computer championships. Tactics are short-term. Strategy is long-term. Both are important and computers have shown that both are important.
Leela Chess Zero is known largely for her strong positional play and Stockfish up to its recent addition of its neural network component, was known largely for its strong tactical play. Stockfish calculated better than any engine in the world. Leela’s strategy can be summed up as “what move improves my pieces the most, makes your pieces bad, and puts me in the best position to win.”
For the last few years the two engines have been going back and forth winning the most prestigious computer championships. Tactics are short-term. Strategy is long-term. Both are important and computers have shown that both are important.
Jan 24, 2021
0
#6
You could argue that positional play is just 'tactics in advance' - ie setting up a position where tactics are most likely to work
Jan 24, 2021
0
#7
That would be a bad definition of tactics and trivializes its definition. In the military strategy is big picture and tactics is little picture. It’s the same for chess.
You can put a piece on a good square with no obvious plan for how to use it. It’s just on a good square. That is not the definition of a tactic except in the broadest sense and completely undermines the distinction between strategy and tactics. If something means everything, it means nothing.
You can put a piece on a good square with no obvious plan for how to use it. It’s just on a good square. That is not the definition of a tactic except in the broadest sense and completely undermines the distinction between strategy and tactics. If something means everything, it means nothing.
What exactly is getting a positional advantage? Id argue that it’s a sequence of moves that makes you have an advantage. No matter if it’s a damning strike or not. Leads to a damning strike potentially, but tactics still include positional advancements.
Maybe I’m taking it all to literal, but, that’s what the game is. Could just be a definition issue here, otherwise, I’d love to hear it.
Maybe I’m taking it all to literal, but, that’s what the game is. Could just be a definition issue here, otherwise, I’d love to hear it.
Saw your military post after I posted. Good thing about that point ^^, is that chess is literally no big picture. The plan goes to s*** when the bullets start flying, and just as it would appear, bullets start flying the first move in chess.
The ^^ was to your point Nikki
So when you make a move with no plan, you just make that luckily make that move? What is the intent then, what made you figure that it was a good square? Could it perhaps be in anticipation of a next potential move?
Sorry, am a little behind atm
Sorry, am a little behind atm
Jan 24, 2021
0
#12
Honestly, you’re just being stubborn at this point. Of course there is a big picture. Openings aren’t about taking pieces and checkmating, they are about putting your pieces in good positions. That’s what positional play is.
Early on in her development, Leela was just plain bad at tactics. She would be ahead in the middlegame and then screw up the endgame where it’s all about tactics. Even now she doesn’t play the best move in endgames because to her “winning is winning”. Stockfish in endgames almost always plays the most precise moves that lead to the fastest checkmates.
Positional play is NOT tactics. It is big picture. It is strategy. It is setting you up to be in a winning position. Nitpicking differences between the two is just silly.
Early on in her development, Leela was just plain bad at tactics. She would be ahead in the middlegame and then screw up the endgame where it’s all about tactics. Even now she doesn’t play the best move in endgames because to her “winning is winning”. Stockfish in endgames almost always plays the most precise moves that lead to the fastest checkmates.
Positional play is NOT tactics. It is big picture. It is strategy. It is setting you up to be in a winning position. Nitpicking differences between the two is just silly.
I think we’re close.
Im not waging war on the concept of positional play, im not attacking any of the subcategories that should be - and are - tactics. Im simply explaining that everything is tactics.
As far as big picture goes, you can get 5-6 moves in (max) before it crumbles? Nothing about it is truly premeditated after that point. Strategy is premeditated, big picture is premeditated, your responding to a potential of a billion moves, is not premeditated
Im not waging war on the concept of positional play, im not attacking any of the subcategories that should be - and are - tactics. Im simply explaining that everything is tactics.
As far as big picture goes, you can get 5-6 moves in (max) before it crumbles? Nothing about it is truly premeditated after that point. Strategy is premeditated, big picture is premeditated, your responding to a potential of a billion moves, is not premeditated
Subcategories of tactics* - was my point
Really struggling to write effectively right now
Really struggling to write effectively right now
Jan 24, 2021
0
#15
We have two word—strategy and tactics—and there is some overlap. They are two concepts that exist as theoretical archetypes that are distinct. To say that all strategy is tactics renders this distinction moot.
In practice, strategy is about putting your pieces on good squares. From those squares the piece can do any number of things that are good. You have flexibility. You can do many things. A tactic is ONE set of moves.
Puzzles are tactics. They are about finding the best set of moves to accomplish a specific goal, usually checkmating, but sometimes winning a piece. They are about brute-force calculation.
This is why Leela and Stockfish are different and why I used the example in the first place. Stockfish up to NNUE was all about brute-force calculation, and why Leela and before it Alpha Zero were so revolutionary. They don’t do brute-force calculation. They think about good positions and bad positions. If you call that tactics, then you are using the term differently than any grandmaster would.
In practice, strategy is about putting your pieces on good squares. From those squares the piece can do any number of things that are good. You have flexibility. You can do many things. A tactic is ONE set of moves.
Puzzles are tactics. They are about finding the best set of moves to accomplish a specific goal, usually checkmating, but sometimes winning a piece. They are about brute-force calculation.
This is why Leela and Stockfish are different and why I used the example in the first place. Stockfish up to NNUE was all about brute-force calculation, and why Leela and before it Alpha Zero were so revolutionary. They don’t do brute-force calculation. They think about good positions and bad positions. If you call that tactics, then you are using the term differently than any grandmaster would.
So the subcategories take precedent over the overarching tactics category. I concede that point, along with grandmasters using specific terminology (not our focus, but notable).
But what constitutes “good squares” is entirely based on the opponents moves. Of course you can have principally “good squares”, not arguing that. But ultimately, you can’t anticipate what squares will be good before the game starts or until you see your opponents next move. Your response to their next move would be tactical.
I have enjoyed this, think you make a Legit argument. And you did explain your point further which is good in debate so thank you.
But what constitutes “good squares” is entirely based on the opponents moves. Of course you can have principally “good squares”, not arguing that. But ultimately, you can’t anticipate what squares will be good before the game starts or until you see your opponents next move. Your response to their next move would be tactical.
I have enjoyed this, think you make a Legit argument. And you did explain your point further which is good in debate so thank you.
CHESS IS A L.OT MORE THAN TACTICS OR POSITIONAL P;LAY. [SORRY FOR C APS MEDICAL ;PROBLEM]
Tactics are one set of moves, but after every set of moves are there not more sets of moves to discover? This is the crux of the debate. Sorry I haven’t written more coherently. Texting on the phone never works for me, big thumbs.🤳🏻👍
Jan 24, 2021
0
#19
But things like putting your rooks on open files, putting your bishops on long diagonals, fighting for center control, making sure your king is safe, and not putting your queen out early do not require any calculation. They are just things you do that are generally good to do.
These are just the simplest examples but can be generalized. I know that having a bishop pair on b2 and b3, staring at the black king is generally good. I’m not sure how I’m going to use them and I haven’t any specific plan on how I’m going to checkmate the king, but I know that somewhere down the line good things could happen.
These are just the simplest examples but can be generalized. I know that having a bishop pair on b2 and b3, staring at the black king is generally good. I’m not sure how I’m going to use them and I haven’t any specific plan on how I’m going to checkmate the king, but I know that somewhere down the line good things could happen.
.