A combination by involves a sacrifice, while tactics includes maneuvers without combinations. For instance, forking two pieces with a knight would be a tactic; but sacrificing a piece to set up a fork would be a combination.
Combinations or Tactis? Beginners need not comment...
Sort:
Mar 18, 2011
0
#23
polydiatonic wrote:
musicalhair wrote:
Paraphrasing Yasser Seirawan in his book on tactics, he defines combination as a mix of tactics involving a sac, in an attempt to gain an advantage. I only saw that definition today, and was a little surprised by it. I thought it was just that a combination was a chain of tactics strung together, one leading to the next.
Well that's interesting. If that's the true definition then that's news to me; that a combination requires a sac. I wonder it that's really true. I think I'm going to ask Jerry Silman...
It's the definition givven by Seirawan and Silman in their book Tactics. Seirawan (I get the feeling more of the prose is actually Silman's but Yasser was the more famous player) states that Lasker poorly defined what a combination was. Lasker defined it just as a sequence of tactics designed to get an advanatge. A later author added that a combination must involve a sacrifice. Finally Seirawan removed the caveat that a combination must lead to an advantage, there are combinations that fails after all hence the attempt for an advantage.
Who is Teichman anyway
Lasker tried to have some type of tactical threat in every move he made, but didn't make a lot of actual combinations. He believed the threat was often stronger than the execution.
Mar 18, 2011
0
#26
blake78613 wrote:
Lasker tried to have some type of tactical threat in every move he made, but didn't make a lot of actual combinations. He believed the threat was often stronger than the execution.
I remember winning a game in which every move I made had some tactical threat, and while I was not good enough to capitalize on a few beautiful combinations picked up the computer in analysis later -- and most of the spectators thought I was a fish getting luck against a much better opponent. I won simply by pressure no spectacular combination -- my opponent apparantly had seen the combination that I missed and rushing to defend against that in fear I would see it next move ended up dropping a piece ...OTB 15/0 tc I think.
It is amazing how much nice combinations can be missed in a game. If anything I just wish I could just never miss a single combination in play.
Maybe Lasker was aware of the combinations and simply did not want to use them because he thought he could win some extra pawns, or simply because he did not choose to finish his combination until he could checkmate or find a clear victory. Here is a game I played where there where several chances to exchange all the material for an extra rook or knight in a won endgame, I declined all of them.
edit: facepalm, white resigned
Mar 18, 2011
0
#28
Steinar wrote:
polydiatonic wrote:
Steinar wrote:
Why don't you ask him? Looks like he's a columnist for the New York Post, it should be pretty easy to track him down there and send him an e-mail.
As for me, I have no idea.
I looked around on both google and on the NYtimes website to try to find Soltis' column, but no luck. If you (or anyone) has a lead on contacting him to ask I'd love to do so...
His email is publicly available, appearing below some (not all) of his articles. I sent it to you along with his Spoke.com profile in a private message.
Yes, thanks I've already sent him an email, I'll let you know if I hear anything back!
Mar 18, 2011
0
#29
paul211 wrote:
The combinational style player is not concerned with a future tactical or positional advantage. The clear objective I think is the capture of material and what will be the outcome after the capture is of less importance than the capture itself. The goal is an immediate gain in a localized part of the board.
On the other hand the positional player is targeting the development of the position that will enable him to possibly take advantage in the moves to follow usually across the board to confuse the opponent but the final action is focused on a critical point the King mate. With playing a positional game, the incumbent needs to evaluate relational parameters such as; pieces position, board control, advantage on Queen or King side, possibilities of development etc, and material parameters, pieces advantages, pawns advantages, exchanges etc, both as independent variables, meaning to analyze both separately or individually and not necessarily connected to each other.
The combinational player bases his evaluation on the end position. A combination is always derived fro a given position.
The major difference between having an advantage with having the initiative in a game is: the initiative can be neutralized with a good move while having the advantage means that, in principle, you should win the game or at least force a draw at least force a draw. The combinational player tries to get an immediate advantage.
Strategic or positional play is a long term goal where one plays for control of the board and squares for a future potential advantage plan; control of squares in the enemy territory such as Rook on the 7th row to sweep pawns creates a ramped position for the enemy and can lead to tactical combinations. While tactics or combinational play is a set of forced immediate moves that leads to a material or pieces, any, gain advantage or even mate. Play is immediate.
Tactical combinations arise locally in a limited area of the board (especially mating combinations). But Positional chess is often played across the board. However, tactical combinations also occur across the board many a times (and they are the most difficult to guess and so most successful) but their effect is mostly local (focused at some points).
The system of winning a game emerging from this analysis is a sound opening (lead in development), then creation of weaknesses in the opponent’s position through positional play, attacks with combinational play, material or positional gain, and planning for endgame best position.
And I just wished that you allowed the future chess players, kids and lower rated players to have their input, they are the future of chess after all, and all great players where at one time kids and beginners, so why the exclusion to their comments, we might learn something as some of them will be one day the stars of future chess.
I'm going to read this carefully when I get home from work later...
I suppose, if we were to propose a difference between the two quite related styles, I'd say a tactical player plays tactically, but perhaps more on instinct, with tons of patterns coming to him, while a combinational player likes to calculate really long lines, but in this trance may miss the big picture. But any player needs to judge when the position demands long, concrete calculation of a critical line, a wide search for tactical themes on the board (this helps evaluate your potential dynamic chances; such factors of course make up the most forcing and thus ideal way to construct and execute a plan), or just pure strategy.
Apr 12, 2011
0
#31
Exciting news, IM Silman has answered my question that I posted at this thread with an article. Here's the link to his article:
http://www.chess.com/article/view/are-tactics-the-same-as-combinations
Hmm... let me take a shot at this. I recently finished a game that contained what fills Silman's definition of a combination (sacrifice + forced moves = advantage). It even had some tactics (I guess):
Does the fact that I'm much more excited about the knight sacrifice mean that I'm a combinational player rather than a tactical one?
EDIT: Okay, the 22... Bf8 variation sucks. Point is, black's still in trouble.
Estragon wrote:
dalephilly wrote:
Technically speaking, a combination must involve a sacrifice, whereas a tactic doesn't have to. I have no idea if that is what Soltis was referring to.
That is generally - but not universally - accepted, and was the subject of great controversy for a long time.
By any definition, a combination is forced sequence which results in the player being in a more favorable situation than before it.
A tactic is a simpler device, such as a double attack or intermediate move. All combinations involve one or more tactics, but not all tactics are combinations.
+1
JohnRoyl wrote:
A tactic is a fork, or skewer, or discovered check, or what have you.
A combination is a forced sequence of moves that leads to a tactic or other positional/material gain.
seems like a U1000 answerd your question correctly, contrary to your topic assumption :))
Apr 12, 2011
0
#35
Apr 13, 2011
0
#36
Fezzik wrote:
Geekid, if you read that article, Silman suggests that an IM made a very similar definition as JohnRoyl.
It sounds like Silman cops out a bit. His definitions of a combination are familiar, and are pretty much what I thought of. He seems to define tactics as any calculations, but it's not really clear.
wow, really? That's not how I read the article...
Though beginners are discouraged of making comments, I would like to add my thoughts as well. I think tactics are thematic ideas which are the building blocks of a combination. The tactic actually does not exist in real world. It is just the IDEA, while the combination, regardless of its complexity or simplicity, are the real events which we watch on chess boards. When we study basic tactic books the tactical themes are demonstrated through simplified combinations. In those cases, every position is continued with a combination whereas every combination has one or more thematic ideas (that is tactic) behind.
I think that a tactic is a puzzle that tests your knowledge about gaining material (skewer, pin, etc.) or forced mate combination (+M6, -M2, etc.). A combination, for me, is just a series of moves that leads to tactics and you could gain a slight edge (advantage) compared to your opponent.
I think the statement made can be completely disregarded as un-provable.
I would rather hear from Soltis about why he make that assertion.