… Even by today's standards, pulling both into harmony brings you a lot higher than 2200 master level
For players well below that higher-than-2200 level, is it perhaps natural to discuss issues related to the lack of harmony?
… Even by today's standards, pulling both into harmony brings you a lot higher than 2200 master level
For players well below that higher-than-2200 level, is it perhaps natural to discuss issues related to the lack of harmony?
… Didn't [Lasker] say that before capablanca thought he solved chess? ...
I do know about about such a claim, but I would think that Capablanca would not have been eager to make such a statement after the 1924 tournament.
... if you're going to quote lasker you're just as well off trying to use your own words.
I think it is better to show what Lasker actually wrote.
… Didn't [Lasker] say that before capablanca thought he solved chess? ...
I do know about about such a claim, but I would think that Capablanca would not have been eager to make such a statement after the 1924 tournament.
Capablanca made Capablanca chess because the game was either solved or immediately going to be solved and the only way to get some more play out of the mastered game was to change the rules a little.
You previously referred to a Capablanca belief that he solved chess. If you switch to a belief that chess was going to be solved, that makes the idea somewhat more believable as something that could have happened after the 1924 tournament.
Hi, chess.com ! I have been facing this dilemma:
I am around 1560 level on chess.com (Rapid is the only time control I play seriously in), and I would consider my style of play positional. So I was wondering, would playing more tactically (tactical openings, more open positions) improve my overall chess game, or would it be better to stick to what I feel comfortable? I've heard before that beginners (I don't know if 1560 would be considered beginner or intermediate) should play open, tactical positions such as gambits and such, but at the same time, I don't play nearly as good when I play purely tactically. So I was wondering, would it be best to play more tactical games and maybe go down in rating a bit but eventually go up again, or should I stick to what I am comfortable with? I would appreciate anybody's answer to this question though it would be nice if some higher rated players who have potentially gone through the same could answer.
Thanks!
1560 here is probably 1400 ELO imo....beginner is under 1200 ELO.
1400 ELO is an experienced beginner...
The more you will play the better your tactical skills will improve......
at 1600 ELO(that equal 1800 here) you need very good tactical skills.
above that i have no experience
Incorrect. I referred specifically to the issue of correct usage of "positional" and "tactical". I have no reason to doubt your ability to write authoritatively on many aspects of chess, but as for as I know, there is no generally accepted single authority for chess terminology, and there seems to be variation in usage from one person to another. Consequently, there seems to be no grounds for a belief that people are obliged to comply with what you believe to be correct usage.
If they are using it in the context of educational, then yes, there is a single definition. Otherwise, yes you are right..if its a spongey hobbyist joke clown flake troll show there is no definition.
you always get stronger when you work on the weakest part of your game. so that should answer your question.
If only it would...
If you look back to post #8 (made about 4 days ago), you can see a llamonade2 (formerly Chebyshevv) post commenting on working on one's weakest areas. If you, or anyone, wonders about why the discussion was not regarded as settled at that point, there is always the possibility to look at the first three pages.
@kindaspongey: "I do not see anywhere in there where you claimed that the starting position demands a particular opening."
As I haven't written that the starting position demands a particular opening, I don't see the need to write a reply.
@kindaspongey: "Incorrect. I referred specifically to the issue of correct usage of "positional" and "tactical". I have no reason to doubt your ability to write authoritatively on many aspects of chess, but as for as I know, there is no generally accepted single authority for chess terminology, and there seems to be variation in usage from one person to another. Consequently, there seems to be no grounds for a belief that people are obliged to comply with what you believe to be correct usage."
For starters, I specifically wrote about the concepts of positional and tactical styles. A situation may require a tactical solution, a positional solution or, most commonly, a combination of both, but none means that a player can subjectively modify the position's inner logic. Therefore, there's no positional or tactical style.
See it this way: Say there's a job involving the use of hexagonal screws and wrenches (Allen). Let's assume they're in millimeters and someone tries to use a 5 mm wrench in a 10 mm screw or a 10 mm wrench in a 5 mm screw. Would you say that the first case implies a "5 mm style" and the second a "10 mm style"? And even if a 5 mm wrench is used on a 5 mm screw, can we speak of a "5 mm style"?
… Although sometimes it's possible to have a choice between a calm or a dynamic game, most of the time the player has to choose the right plan and the right move regardless of his personal preferences, strengths, and weaknesses.
Whenever the player goes subjective rather than following what the position demands, he's making a mistake that can be punished. ...
What about when a person is choosing an opening? Is there anything about the starting position that "demands" a particular opening? ...
...
I do not see anywhere in there where you claimed that the starting position demands a particular opening. ...
As I haven't written that the starting position demands a particular opening, I don't see the need to write a reply.
It seems to me that we have no reason to doubt that a player's choice of opening is a problem that might be resolved by the sort of questions suggested for consideration by GM John Nunn (and others). GM John Nunn (and others) have referred to such questions as a consideration of style.
"... you must choose what openings you will be using. This choice depends on your taste and also on the character and style of your game. If you like to attack and you are not afraid of sacrificing and taking risks choose sharp gambit openings. If you prefer a quiet game, then there are relatively calm openings for you. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin
... when a player is inclined to slower or dynamic systems, he's wrongly tagged as positional or tactical when ...
... as for as I know, there is no generally accepted single authority for chess terminology, and there seems to be variation in usage from one person to another. Consequently, there seems to be no grounds for a belief that people are obliged to comply with what you believe to be correct usage.
For starters, I specifically wrote .... Therefore, there's no positional or tactical style. ...
IM Georgios Souleidis: How would you characterize your style?
GM Hikaru Nakamura: Very tactical. I like playing open positions with a lot of space.
Didn't get the word from Nicator65?
Not sure I believe that a 1500 player actually has a style (yet).
In the opening you know there are a lot of style....if i feel like playing the London system or the Danish Gambit......
Not sure I believe that a 1500 player actually has a style (yet).
In the opening you know there are a lot of style....if i feel like playing the London system or the Danish Gambit......
Well, the London system is (imo) a more positional opening, while the Danish Gambit is a more dynamic aggressive opening. I mean, unless that is supposed to show that you have a universal "playing style", then I am not quite sure which "playing style" you are referring to.
I would think that Capablanca would not have been eager to make such a statement after the 1924 tournament.
How about after the 1927 tourney?
Yeah, maybe, but I would think that Capablanca would have been very aware of the 1924 experience still fresh in everyone’s mind.
1560 here is probably 1400 ELO imo....beginner is under 1200 ELO.
1400 ELO is an experienced beginner...
The more you will play the better your tactical skills will improve......
at 1600 ELO(that equal 1800 here) you need very good tactical skills.
above that i have no experience
Actually, I've found that chess.com's ratings reflect a player's current playing strength better than USCF or FIDE ratings do, because people tend to play a lot more online these days. USCF and FIDE ratings are lower because they aren't usually up to date with a player's current strength, since fewer players participate in OTB tournaments than play online nowadays and because those ratings usually lag a player's actual playing strength. For example, I haven't played a USCF rated tournament in about 25 years, so my old USCF rating of 1470 is moot. On a side note, there's no such thing as an "experienced beginner". What you're referring to is called a novice. It goes: beginner, novice, intermediate, advanced, Master, Grandmaster. People tend to disagree about the ratings ranges for these categories though, since the official chess classes are E, D, C, B, A, Expert, Master, IM and GM.
As with many things, I think it is a mistake to think only in terms of extremes. I suspect that many players do some sort of mixture of tactical and positional thinking with a difference in emphasis from one player to another. As I read it, KingSideInvasion was thinking of trying to push himself towards more tactical thinking by means of a changed opening selection and perhaps other things.
... when a player is inclined to slower or dynamic systems, he's wrongly tagged as positional or tactical when ...
... as for as I know, there is no generally accepted single authority for chess terminology, and there seems to be variation in usage from one person to another. Consequently, there seems to be no grounds for a belief that people are obliged to comply with what you believe to be correct usage.
For starters, I specifically wrote .... Therefore, there's no positional or tactical style. ...
IM Georgios Souleidis: How would you characterize your style?
GM Hikaru Nakamura: Very tactical. I like playing open positions with a lot of space.
Didn't get the word from Nicator65?>>>
One could justifiably argue that the player of "dynamic" or "fast" openings is positional and the player of slow openings MAY be a tactical player. This is because dynamic opening systems tend to even out quite soon with best play. The best way for white to get something out of the King's Gambit, for instance, is to be an endgame specialist because white can get a tiny plus in the ending from it. In general, with systems that do even out dynamically, a positional player .... one who can spot a small positional plus .... is best placed to get a lasting advantage. Slower systems tend to be complex and complicated where positions are unbalanced, giving more scope for meaningful tactics that can procure a lasting advantage.
All tactical players are essentially positional, unless they don't know how to control the tactics.
Well i prefer: debutant(beginner less than 1000 elo),joueur occasionnel (occasional player at 1200 elo),joueur avancer ( 1400 elo),joueur experimenter 1600 elo),joueur de club (1800 elo),joueur de pointe (2000 elo) etc etc....
1560 here is probably 1400 ELO imo....beginner is under 1200 ELO.
1400 ELO is an experienced beginner...
The more you will play the better your tactical skills will improve......
at 1600 ELO(that equal 1800 here) you need very good tactical skills.
above that i have no experience
Actually, I've found that chess.com's ratings reflect a player's current playing strength better than USCF or FIDE ratings do, because people tend to play a lot more online these days. USCF and FIDE ratings are lower because they aren't usually up to date with a player's current strength, since fewer players participate in OTB tournaments than play online nowadays and because those ratings usually lag a player's actual playing strength. For example, I haven't played a USCF rated tournament in about 25 years, so my old USCF rating of 1470 is moot. On a side note, there's no such thing as an "experienced beginner". What you're referring to is called a novice. It goes: beginner, novice, intermediate, advanced, Master, Grandmaster. People tend to disagree about the ratings ranges for these categories though, since the official chess classes are E, D, C, B, A, Expert, Master, IM and GM.
Well i prefer: debutant(beginner less than 1000 elo),joueur occasionnel (occasional player at 1200 elo),joueur avancer ( 1400 elo),joueur experimenter 1600 elo),joueur de club (1800 elo),joueur de pointe (2000 elo) etc etc....
"... The combinative player an adventurer, speculator, gambler, the positional player believing in rigid dogma, happy only in a firm position, afraid of all dangers, parsimonious with all he holds, even with the minute values; the former perhaps careless of detail and large-visioned, the latter penny-wise and pound-foolish. The combinative player calls the positional player Philistine, pedant, woodshifter; the positional player replies with invectives such as romancer, dreamer, presumptuous idealist. One meets with pronounced types of the two kinds and they poke fun at one another. … However obviously the majority of chess players may be divided into two big classes of combination and positional players, in the chess master this antagonism is transformed into a harmony. …" - Emanuel Lasker (~1925)
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5856bd64ff7c50433c3803db/t/5a0dcda2ec212de097e22482/1510854051856/lasker%27s_manual_excerpt.pdf