Controversial opinion - Chess strategy is extremely overrated - Chess Forums - Page 4

Immaculate_Slayer

Nov 20, 2021

0

#61

andrewpalmer123 escreveu:

Immaculate_Slayer wrote:

CooloutAC escreveu:

Immaculate_Slayer wrote:

andrewpalmer123 escreveu:

nah

how did you manage 100 rating

People should stop dismissing arguments based on rating. I'm not even rated 400 but in my answers I quoted two super gm's. Strategy plays a role depending on variants but it doesn't have much to to do with the game itself which is mostly theory. I think the OP believes it has to more to do with "punching" an opponent because tactics come into play when lacking theory.

Lmao I didn't even dismiss his arguments I just asked use proper logic please

you did

Your argument being "nah", sure!!!!

andrewpalmer123

Nov 20, 2021

0

#62

Immaculate_Slayer wrote:

andrewpalmer123 escreveu:

Immaculate_Slayer wrote:

CooloutAC escreveu:

Immaculate_Slayer wrote:

andrewpalmer123 escreveu:

nah

how did you manage 100 rating

People should stop dismissing arguments based on rating. I'm not even rated 400 but in my answers I quoted two super gm's. Strategy plays a role depending on variants but it doesn't have much to to do with the game itself which is mostly theory. I think the OP believes it has to more to do with "punching" an opponent because tactics come into play when lacking theory.

Lmao I didn't even dismiss his arguments I just asked use proper logic please

you did

Your argument being "nah", sure!!!!

lol

llama47

Nov 20, 2021

0

#63

batgirl wrote:

It might help if each person defined what "strategy" means to him/her/it.

Tactics -- Short term forcing moves (pins, forks, etc)
Positional -- Short term non-forcing moves (rooks on open files, knights on outposts, etc)
Strategy -- Long term non-forcing moves (seeking play in an area with a certain mechanism. E.g. minority attack on the queenside, or piece-centric mating attack on the kingside).

batgirl wrote:

If you fail in [one of many different ways] . . . that doesn't mean the strategy was bad, just that it's execution was less than optimal.

Yeah, and this is something many new players probably misunderstand...

... when an FM is hunched over the board, thinking for 20 minutes in a position where their opening prep has just run out due to a few rare moves, they're not thinking of what strategy they want to play. They may not even be calculating much. They're trying to understand what strategy the position requires them to play.

Of course it's possible to lose because you chose a bad plan, but for example, a GM known for boring play will obliterate you with a sacrificial attacking sequence, if you have them that opportunity and that's the only way to win. Similarly a GM known for attacking will grind you down in an endgame if that's the only way to win.

---

So that's how I define strategy.

nklristic

Nov 20, 2021

0

#64

llama47 wrote:

For example, I'm sure we've all seen something like this:

-

In fact have any player rated below _____ annotate one of their games, and more or less every comment they make will be a lesser example of this

(Rating given as ____ because I don't want to insult anyone... just use your imaginatoin)

Well, the bishop has been chased away, and you didn't even have to play b4, so you could say that the plan was extra successful.

llama47

Nov 20, 2021

0

#65

B1ZMARK wrote:

kartikeya_tiwari wrote:

Anonymous_Dragon wrote:

Better tactics flow from superior positions. SO yes Strategy is important.

That statement also doesn't really hold true in my opinion. It only really holds for very high level of play. What most often seems to be the case is that just one slip up of variations in the head can lead to some devastating counter attack or tactic by the opponent.

I am sure that quote holds true for titled players(like IM, GM etc) but for the vast vast majority of people it does not meet ground reality.

If you argue on the premise that the majority of players are not IMs, GMs, etc, and that strategy is less useful than tactics for the majority of players, you would be correct. But I don't agree that strategy is overrated, since pretty much all the coaches I've seen say, "tactics, tactics, tactics", "practice your tactics", "your homework over the weekend is to do 20 puzzles", etc...

Never once heard a coach say that you should go read pawn power by kmoch or anything of the like.

I've seen 2600 GM coaches give homework like this...

"I see you play ____ opening. In the 70s _____ was the leading GM on that, so you should look at as many of their games as you can. In current times it's not played as much, but look at the players _____ and _____ for some examples."

llama47

Nov 20, 2021

0

#66

CooloutAC wrote:

well you are partly right. Its really not about strategy, but its also not just about throwing punches. Its all just theory. In other words, memorizing the best lines from past games.
In the latest video on coffee Chess Gm Hikaru made a remark to one onlooker who said "look how careful he plays, he doesn't take any chances". To which Hikaru replies "its really just all theory, we like to say its not, but thats all it is" And then told his opponent what historic game he should study, that opened and played out the same exact way as theirs.

I saw that video. I used to play 1.e4 c5 as black in tournaments, so I also recognized the structure and typical plans for their game.

That's just how it is when you study something... a new player may be even more annoyed at the fact that it's not just memorization of theory, it's knowing the structure. I think Hikaru mentions that at some point too i.e. "this structure" (and there are only something like 15-20 main structures in chess).

This wiki article lists 4 references, but it's basically just a condensed version of Soltis' book

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawn_structure

andrewpalmer123

Nov 20, 2021

0

#67

llama47

Nov 20, 2021

0

#68

Optimissed wrote:

llama47 wrote:
Of course even a total beginner can (and should) be happy to put a rook on an open file simply because "that's where rooks belong," but the main mechanism of finding and validating moves for new/weak players shouldn't be abstract ideas like active pieces, it should be lots of calculation.

Rooks belong on weak half-opened files.

Positionally speaking, pieces "belong" on squares where they "touch" weak enemy pawns or touch squares around the enemy king.

By "belong" I mean other strategic considerations are for the sake of reaching this ultimate goal (from there tactics win stuff). For example a rook on an open file is pointless unless it can infiltrate, which itself is also pointless unless the infiltration brings the rook into contact with weak pawns / enemy king.

So yes, a rook on a half open file, looking at a backward pawn, will tend to be better than a rook on a fully open file.

llama47

Nov 20, 2021

0

#69

Optimissed wrote:

I think almost the opposite. New and weak players need to look like stronger ones by making moves that look like those that careful, stronger players would make.

Then they need to find out where they went wrong.

I can't think of any other skill in life that works this way.

When you're new at chess (or anything) you need to build up your fundamentals. Pros preform in a way that takes fundamentals as granted.

More specifically, new players should work to build good calculation habits by playing long games and making sure their moves are safe (and trying to punish their opponent's moves when possible).

andrewpalmer123

Nov 20, 2021

0

#70

my bullet rating is skyrocketing

andrewpalmer123

Nov 20, 2021

0

#71

Optimissed wrote:

llama47 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

I think almost the opposite. New and weak players need to look like stronger ones by making moves that look like those that careful, stronger players would make.

Then they need to find out where they went wrong.

I can't think of any other skill in life that works this way.

When you're new at chess (or anything) you need to build up your fundamentals. Pros preform in a way that takes fundamentals as granted.

More specifically, new players should work build good calculation habits by playing long games and making sure their moves are safe (and trying to punish their opponent's moves when possible).

And building fundamentals isn't calculate, calculate calculate. Anyhow, this is a game and we can learn by losing. We can even lose deliberately to discover what happens. Real life doesn't work very well like that, though. It's a bit different.

when playing short games instead of making the best move make the move that makes your enemy think the longest

llama47

Nov 20, 2021

0

#72

If someone gave me a beginner to teach, I'd try to cover the basics in all the areas. Endgames, positional play, openings, tactics, etc.

Having said that...

Optimissed wrote:

And building fundamentals isn't calculate, calculate calculate.

I strongly disagree with this. I think the most useful thing a new player can do is to form good calculation habits.

andrewpalmer123

Nov 20, 2021

0

#73

llama47 wrote:

If someone gave me a beginner to teach, I'd try to cover the basics in all the areas. Endgames, positional play, openings, tactics, etc.

Having said that...

Optimissed wrote:

And building fundamentals isn't calculate, calculate calculate.

I strongly disagree with this. I think the most useful thing a new player can do is to form good calculation habits.

i also disagree

llama47

Nov 20, 2021

0

#74

Optimissed wrote:

Quite simply, a new player isn't capable of calculating accurately.

A new player isn't capable of anything at all. That's what being new is.

But they're more capable of building up calculation habits than manipulating abstract concepts like why a certain move is good or bad, or what caused them to win or lose a game.

andrewpalmer123

Nov 20, 2021

0

#75

llama47 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Quite simply, a new player isn't capable of calculating accurately.

A new player isn't capable of anything at all. That's what being new is.

But they're more capable of building up calculation habits than manipulating abstract concepts like why a certain move is good or bad, or what caused them to win or lose a game.

well except by time

llama47

Nov 20, 2021

0

#76

And notice I'm not saying accurate calculation or long calculation... I'm saying good calculation habits. What I mean is looking at the right kinds of moves (checks captures and threats) and for the right reasons (trying to win material, or avoid losing material).

andrewpalmer123

Nov 20, 2021

0

#77

or trades like a bishop for a queeb

llama47

Nov 20, 2021

0

#78

CooloutAC wrote:

llama47 wrote:

CooloutAC wrote:

well you are partly right. Its really not about strategy, but its also not just about throwing punches. Its all just theory. In other words, memorizing the best lines from past games.
In the latest video on coffee Chess Gm Hikaru made a remark to one onlooker who said "look how careful he plays, he doesn't take any chances". To which Hikaru replies "its really just all theory, we like to say its not, but thats all it is" And then told his opponent what historic game he should study, that opened and played out the same exact way as theirs.

I saw that video. I used to play 1.e4 c5 as black in tournaments, so I also recognized the structure and typical plans for their game.

That's just how it is when you study something... a new player may be even more annoyed at the fact that it's not just memorization of theory, it's knowing the structure. I think Hikaru mentions that at some point too i.e. "this structure" (and there are only something like 15-20 main structures in chess).

This wiki article lists 4 references, but it's basically just a condensed version of Soltis' book

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawn_structure

He literally said he was just playing theory saying people don't like to admit that as the truth. Knowing the structure and knowing the positions determines the theory and "best" moves no? He literally told the kid to look at that game so he will know what lines to play next time.

Yep, that's how pros play, they know a hell of a lot about chess, and onlookers are consistently impressed for completely wrong reasons.

I'm sure I'm impressed for "wrong" reasons too... but not reasons as wrong as the guy in the video who didn't even recognize the position type (I may not have known that specific position, but at least I recognized the type).

llama47

Nov 20, 2021

0

#79

andrewpalmer123 wrote:

llama47 wrote:

Optimissed wrote:

Quite simply, a new player isn't capable of calculating accurately.

A new player isn't capable of anything at all. That's what being new is.

But they're more capable of building up calculation habits than manipulating abstract concepts like why a certain move is good or bad, or what caused them to win or lose a game.

well except by time

Or checkmate

llama47

Nov 20, 2021

0

#80

Optimissed wrote:

You cannot calculate if you don't know what to look for. It's that simple.

Exactly why I say they should build up good calculation habits.

I'm not saying they should calculate long lines or try to play like an engine or something. I'm saying they should calculate the right things for the right reasons. Luckily these reasons are very concrete (win material and avoid losing material).

Unluckily it's a very tedious skill to build

Optimissed wrote:

No, what they're most capable of is copying how other, stronger players move in similar positions and remembering basic features of games and gradually building a working knowledge.

Knowledge and performance are two different things. Like I said, if I had to teach a beginner, I'd try to cover all the basics.