Could You Beat A Grandmaster If... - Chess Forums - Page 2

Musikamole

Nov 28, 2012

0

#21

Vease wrote:

A large percentage of chess positions don't have any tactical shots, if you don't know the basic principles of strategy you will be wiped out by any GM.

I don't know what percent of chess games have no tactical shots, and I'm not sure if anyone really knows. At the highest of levels (Super GM), I am told that even though I can't see any 1,2,3 -10 move tactics in those games, they are imbedded deep into the games, with tons of prophylaxis built into each position, to avoid the tactical shots.

If I were to step in and make one move for one of the Super GM's, say at move 30, the position would most likely go from equal to dead lost, with a tactical shot hitting me over the head, because I can't see all of the crazy hard tactics at work behind the scenes in the position.

EricFleet

Nov 28, 2012

0

#22

Musikamole wrote:

I disagree. During a chess.com deathmatch on chess.com tv, IM Danny Rensch and IM David Pruess both saw a blunder on the board at the exact same time, in about 2 seconds. One of the reasons for tactics training, the way I understand it, is to instantly recognize a mistake by your opponent, and then cash in.

Disagree all you like, but unless you have video evidence of the Hallelujah Choir, you are wrong. The two IMs saw the shot, but that doesn't guarantee you will after using the tactical trainer. I am not arguing that titled players are very good at tactics. I am not arguing that tactics skill is not important. I am arguing that training yourself on known winning positions is not sufficient. You can traing all day long, but without practical experience, you will miss a lot of opportunities in real play.

Phelon

Nov 28, 2012

0

#23

Ive been at 2750 with tactics trainer and i know something about positional chess. the answer is no lol.

Musikamole

Nov 28, 2012

0

#24

Rapidwurst wrote:

Hypothetic questions are not interesting...

It was meant to be reality, but I was having a difficult time getting my point across to some people. And I know a club player that does not know any opening (well, he says that), and he doesn't study positional chess, but he happens to be one of the strongest players at our club, with a Class A rating. He kills me in just a few moves otb, knowing way more attacking ideas.

More realistic is a player who is very good in tactics but a very poor positional player. This has nothing to do with the Tactics Trainer on chess.com, there are other ways to study tactics too.

1. Of course a player who is a good tactician knows a lot about strategy too. He knows how to place the pieces for an attack, he knows which positions he has to reach in order to get the chance for a tactical blow and is able to calculate endgames fast and accurate.

Yes, a player like this has good chances to beat a GM (with White...).

But of course the master of tactics with poor positional skills, has better chances to beat a strong player, than the positional master with poor tactical skills (by the way the second player doesn't exist)

RW

1. I like that, especially the idea of better piece placement through tactical studies. Heck, when I first learned checkmates on f7, I started placing my light squared bishop on c4, and played a lot of Italian openings, as well as the Scotch gambit.

Musikamole

Nov 28, 2012

0

#25

Phelon wrote:

Ive been at 2750 with tactics trainer and i know something about positional chess. the answer is no lol.

O.K. You know a million times more stuff about chess than me. TT = 2750! Wow!!

So I got you laughing. That makes me happy. We all need to laugh, everyday if possible.

So tell me, oh great tactics guru, what am I not getting through my thick skull? Please elaborate. Thank you.

If a tactical-combination genius can see mate in 8-10 in a heart beat, then why can't this rare, gifted person beat a GM? I've read about a few prodigy kids who could clobber all levels of chess players with very little formal teaching...beat these players by sight, and blindfold.

ponz111

Nov 28, 2012

0

#26

My opinion is that a player with the best tactics in the world could not beat a grandmaster if he had been locked in a room and only learned tactics.

I think the gm would wipe him out--especially if the gm knew his weaknesses.

This assumes the player does not know pawn structure and many other positional things.

Musikamole

Nov 28, 2012

0

#27

ponz111 wrote:

My opinion is that a player with the best tactics in the world could not beat a grandmaster if he had been locked in a room and only learned tactics.

I think the gm would wipe him out--especially if the gm knew his weaknesses.

This assumes the player does not know pawn structure and many other positional things.

What would this "best tactics in the world" player's weaknesses be? This person wouldn't blunder material to a tactic, would he? Don't you need to be two pawns up to win? GM John Nunn says that a GM can win after being up only one pawn, but he says it is more likely that it will take a two pawn advantage for a GM to score a win. How is this tactical genius going to blunder a pawn. He has perfect board vision.

waffllemaster

Nov 28, 2012

0

#28

Chess is 99% tactics, sure. The catch though is that tactics only appear for the player with the superior position. And the game starts out with both players equal. So in between move 1 and tactics appearing something has to happen to tip the balance.

A player who only knows tactics wont be able to tip that balance, certainly not against a professional player.

EricFleet

Nov 28, 2012

0

#29

Musik has essentially proposed a person who can compute all games of chess given the initial position. In that sense, yes, it is all tactics. Considering the best supercomputer cannot do this, his argument is meaningless. He can technically be right, but so incredibly wrong.

His original argument (question) was about the tactics trainer... a person who has mastered the tactics trainer falls farshort of the perfect board vision he is now discussing. The perfect board vision requires more than the best supercomputers in the world and are beyond what is physically possible.

waffllemaster

Nov 28, 2012

0

#30

Musikamole wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

My opinion is that a player with the best tactics in the world could not beat a grandmaster if he had been locked in a room and only learned tactics.

I think the gm would wipe him out--especially if the gm knew his weaknesses.

This assumes the player does not know pawn structure and many other positional things.

What would this "best tactics in the world" player's weaknesses be? This person wouldn't blunder material to a tactic, would he? Don't you need to be two pawns up to win? GM John Nunn says that a GM can win after being up only one pawn, but he says it is more likely that it will take a two pawn advantage for a GM to score a win. How is this tactical genius going to blunder a pawn. He has perfect board vision.

I'm sure he means the equivalent of two pawns, i.e. when the GM is up two pawns in a positional sense. I win and lose games all the time where the material balance stays equal the entire game (or at least though the ups and downs of the evaluation).

You don't have to drop material to have a losing position!

Elubas

Nov 28, 2012

0

#31

I think positional understanding has diminishing returns. For example, if you, as a beginner know the basic rules and principles of chess, ideas that can be learned in hours, such as "don't move your queen out early," "get your pieces out," etc, you will have a huge advantage over a beginner who hasn't heard of such things. However, having a super advanced positional understanding, against someone with decent basic understanding, is not incredibly advantageous, because a person with the basics will probably still have a reasonable position most of the time. Perhaps the positional genius will find a way to create a small weakness or something, but it won't mean very much at all if he can't back that with both strong tactics and strong endgame technique.

So I say you certainly shouldn't ignore the concept of having good pieces and space, but until your tactics are very strong don't worry so much about tiny things like "waiting moves" or "better pawn structure." Having such advantages are better than nothing, but they are still small. You will generally be much more punished for missing a subtle tactical nuance (that could result in an outright win of material for your opponent) rather than a subtle positional nuance.

Musikamole

Nov 28, 2012

0

#32

waffllemaster wrote:

Chess is 99% tactics, sure. The catch though is that tactics only appear for the player with the superior position. And the game starts out with both players equal. So in between move 1 and tactics appearing something has to happen to tip the balance.

A player who only knows tactics wont be able to tip that balance, certainly not against a professional player.

Well said. I like it.

You almost have me believing that Super Tactics Dude will never beat a GM, however, I still think it can happen. Why?

You see, Super Tactics Dude is on a much higher plane of existence, making a GM look like a patzer who struggles to find a simple fork. Super Tactics Dude is light years ahead of any GM when it comes to tactics. His super chess powers come from his mind blowing tactical skills. He WILL tip the balance of an equal position, because he will see a super sneaky, amazing combination that no GM would ever see in a life time, move his pieces in such a way to set up the most amazing combination, and then bury the GM in under 20 moves!

Please excuse my over enthusiasm for Super Tactics Dude. I just finished teaching one of my best string classes. It's tons of fun. Those kids can play!

C-nack

Nov 28, 2012

0

#33

I don't get why do you create a topic like that. Judging by your answers, you clearly picked a side already and want to everyone to prove that you are right, as well as prove yourself that you are right.
OT: No. You can't beat a grandmaster on equal grounds. 3,5k tactics and 1,7 online chess by the same person is enough of a proof.

Elubas

Nov 28, 2012

0

#34

Super Tactics Dude is a computer, no?

When I think of like a .2, .3 pawn advantage, I think of a pleasant position, but one that can easily turn around if just one tactical nuance is missed. I don't even mean a blunder -- just forgetting that your opponent can make an annoying tactical threat might simply grab the initiative from you, with him getting a .3 advantage instead of you. Unless you have a ridiculous positional advantage, like having eight pieces out versus your opponent's zero, it's still easy for a resourceful opponent to find opportunities in a worse position, especially if their opponent is complacent and not alert. As I said, it doesn't have to be an outright blunder, although that happens plenty of the time too; it can just be a small thing you overlook that makes your "small advantage," that you nursed for 20 moves, disappear immediately.

I suggest anyone who wants to get a feel for this play an engine, starting from a position where you have a pretty large positional advantage, maybe .5-.8 in computer language, but with a lot of pieces on the board. I will argue that most people will not only fail to win, but will lose rather badly -- the tiniest detail you miss will probably allow the computer to make this annoying threat that forces you to lose harmony, and these concessions will pile up in a matter of a few moves. Soon enough the engine will have the initiative, at which point it's already over.

Musikamole

Nov 28, 2012

0

#35

Elubas wrote:

I think positional understanding has diminishing returns. For example, if you, as a beginner know the basic rules and principles of chess, ideas that can be learned in hours, such as "don't move your queen out early," "get your pieces out," etc, you will have a huge advantage over a beginner who hasn't heard of such things. However, having a super advanced positional understanding, against someone with decent basic understanding, is not incredibly advantageous, because a person with the basics will probably still have a reasonable position most of the time. Perhaps the positional genius will find a way to create a small weakness or something, but it won't mean very much at all if he can't back that with both strong tactics and strong endgame technique.

So I say you certainly shouldn't ignore the concept of having good pieces and space, but until your tactics are very strong don't worry so much about tiny things like "waiting moves" or "better pawn structure." Having such advantages are better than nothing, but they are still small. You will generally be much more punished for missing a subtle tactical nuance (that could result in an outright win of material for your opponent) rather than a subtle positional nuance.

Excellent post. I could read books on positional chess all day long. I love that stuff. However, no matter how many opening lines, traps and strategic concepts I learn, it always comes down to one of us dropping a piece, either from lack of attention (en prise), or a pretty simple tactic.

That's how chess is at my level. What gives me an edge at my level is the time I spent going over a few chapters in Silman's endgame book. When I win a piece, and don't see a mate combination, I feel extremely confident to trade down to a very easy endgame to win, K+R vs. K, or K + P vs. K. The K+P vs. K are not always a slam dunk, but the K+R vs. K are.

Regarding pawn structures, I am going through Pawn Structure Chess by Andrew Soltis. Will working through this book increase my winning chances much? I don't know, but it does give me a better understanding of how to use pawns, and where to place my pieces, based on the pawn structure.

I have no idea as to what rating I need to be at to see the fruits of my study on positional chess.

Elubas

Nov 28, 2012

0

#36

Although tactics are very important, I will say that having a 3000 tactics trainer rating doesn't guarantee anything. A lot of times you can play in a way that results in a net gain of TT points, but if applied to OTB would get you in trouble. For instance, if you are 85-90% sure about a move in TT, you will probably get the most points by just playing it. However, in OTB, you want to be more than 85-90%, because just one little oversight might cost you the game. In this way TT doesn't always translate to OTB play, as making educated guesses can often be more effective in TT than they would in OTB. Even if you get to 3000 TT, although you might well be a master, there are no guarantees.

[Keep in mind 85-90% is not being claimed to be the precise number; it could be off by 10 percentage points or something, but hopefully you get the point I'm trying to make.]

In any case, it does train your patterns well. I definitely agree with that. Patterns are what allow strong players to find moves quickly.

Musikamole

Nov 28, 2012

0

#37

Elubas wrote:

Super Tactics Dude is a computer, no?

When I think of like a .2, .3 pawn advantage, I think of a pleasant position, but one that can easily turn around if just one tactical nuance is missed. I don't even mean a blunder -- just forgetting that your opponent can make an annoying tactical threat might simply grab the initiative from you, with him getting a .3 advantage instead of you. Unless you have a ridiculous positional advantage, like having eight pieces out versus your opponent's zero, it's still easy for a resourceful opponent to find opportunities in a worse position, especially if their opponent is complacent and not alert. As I said, it doesn't have to be an outright blunder, although that happens plenty of the time too; it can just be a small thing you overlook that makes your "small advantage," that you nursed for 20 moves, disappear immediately.

I suggest anyone who wants to get a feel for this play an engine, starting from a position where you have a pretty large positional advantage, maybe .5-.8 in computer language, but with a lot of pieces on the board. I will argue that most people will not only fail to win, but will lose rather badly -- the tiniest detail you miss will probably allow the computer to make this annoying threat that forces you to lose harmony, and these concessions will pile up in a matter of a few moves. Soon enough the engine will have the initiative, at which point it's already over.

I was actually thinking of the young Magnus Carlsen. Didn't he beat Gary Kasparov at a young age? Was he a GM at that point? I don't know, but I have heard IM Daniel Rensch say that Magnus Carlsen has calculation skills that are completely off the charts. To be a tactical beast, I would guess that one would also need to be a calculation beast as well. Don't the two go hand in hand? You need to see far ahead, crunch variations quickly, and be precise to nail those really hard tactics, I would imagine.

Back to Tactics Trainer. Wow, I had no idea that Tactics Trainer falls short of preparing one for the tactical challenges at the GM level.

I didn't even know anyone had a rating in the 3000's in TT until I started digging. What tactics don't these guys see? I would think that they have seen it all!

How do the GM's take their tactical skills from a Class player, to NM, to IM, and finally to GM? In my other topic, "Best Graded Chess Tactic Course", someone mentioned CT-ART 4.0 for a graded tactics training course. Would CT-ART prepare one to handle the tactics at the GM level, or is there some other course of study that these guys need to go through?

Elubas

Nov 28, 2012

0

#38

TT is part chess, part game, like bullet chess. A lot of TT specific and bullet specific techniques will help you in those things but not necessarily in OTB chess. Thus, although you can probably make a ballpark estimate, it's not easy to accurately predict someone's rating based on those things.

VLaurenT