Magnus Carlsen said that below 2000 FIDE we should mostly "study tactics" (which is different from solving puzzles). This includes studying the interplay between strategy and tactics.
Did magnus say those "interplay between strategy and tactics" line? i think you just took his words and included that to imply that he meant strategy.
Strategy is completely useless for anyone below 2000 because strategy is not the reason we lose games, it's as simple as that
“Strategy is completely useless for anyone below 2000 because strategy is not the reason we lose games, it's as simple as that”
Incredible .. the nonsense that spews forth into the forums. Strategy can be simplified to mean having a plan. Players below 2000 are not capable of formulating a plan and lose because of a plan gone wrong??? Moves lose games at any level, but it’s always good advice to formulate a strategy at all levels of play.
“Strategy is completely useless for anyone below 2000 because strategy is not the reason we lose games, it's as simple as that”
Incredible .. the nonsense that spews into the forums.
It's just common sense. A 1900 isn't going to beat a fellow 1900 in rapid/slow chess because of some brilliant middlegame plan or some nice opening prep. He is going to beat the other guy as the other guy "missed" some move.
Players below masters have not yet reached a point where they need strategy to win. GMs and super GMs need strategy since their opponents rarely miss moves in their games so the only way to beat them is to play a strong positional idea. For intermediate players all you need to do is to make "ok" moves aka not blunder something and chances are your opponent will most definitely blunder.
This is true for any sport. Also just like how magnus said , players below 2000 should mainly study tactics. Nakamura also said once that up untill 2200 the game is 95% tactics. Ben finegold the chess coach and a GM also says this very often.
Magnus Carlsen said that below 2000 FIDE we should mostly "study tactics" (which is different from solving puzzles). This includes studying the interplay between strategy and tactics.
I like this distinction...
Also I started doing a bit of the Woodpecker Method recently, not grinding it like crazy just trying it out... And besides studying strategy, I found there is something about actually analyzing a tactic deeply and looking at it over and over that you start seeing it in different ways and how beautiful it is...
So in that sense I agree, solving puzzles is almost like the "playing a game" of the wider "studying tactics", which can mean alot of things from analyzing the puzzle and many different lines that could result from a puzzle, to observing the beauty through repetition.. and of course strategy, like you say...
Also just like how magnus said , players below 2000 should mainly study tactics. Nakamura also said once that up untill 2200 the game is 95% tactics.
Magnus and Hikaru both had master-level coaches, when they were under 2000.
Almost certainly, their coaches taught them much more than tactics alone.
They would've looked at countless games (both classic games, and games of their own), and would've discussed the ideas behind each move.
They would've talked, with their coaches, about whether or not these ideas made sense, based on the needs of each position, and they would've learned about practical alternatives.
Quite often, the moves discussed with coaches are positional in nature. Even at lower levels.
Players will say things like, "I thought the queenside would open up, so that's why I started moving my pieces toward that side of the board". Or, "I didn't want to exchange my strong bishop for their knight, because their knight didn't seem to be doing much at all ..." Or, "I wanted to lock the center, so I could start advancing on the kingside, without worrying about them having counterplay in the middle."
These aren't tactical conversations - they're strategic. And it's almost certainly it's the kind of stuff that both Magnus and Hikaru went over a lot, with their own coaches, when they were U-2000 players.
Of course tactics are vital, too. We definitely don't want to miss tactical opportunities, when they arise. But ... tactics aren't everything.
Magnus Carlsen said that below 2000 FIDE we should mostly "study tactics" (which is different from solving puzzles). This includes studying the interplay between strategy and tactics.
He hasn't been rated under 2000 since the age of 10, so first of all, he doesn't even know what under 2000 is.
Second of all he doesn't have any students. If you don't have students then you don't know what works.
Third, I doubt this is actually a quote from him... but even if it were, sure, tactics are very important, no one is going to argue that.
---
Anyway, you want to know the REAL advice almost every GM will give you? Play tons of long OTB tournament games, read books, and study GM games. The idea that all you need is tactics, or all you need is openings, or all you need is [fill in the blank] is mostly talk from new players looking for shortcuts.
Magnus Carlsen said that below 2000 FIDE we should mostly "study tactics" (which is different from solving puzzles). This includes studying the interplay between strategy and tactics.
He hasn't been rated under 2000 since the age of 10, so first of all, he doesn't even know what under 2000 is.
Second of all he doesn't have any students. If you don't have students then you don't know what works.
Third, I doubt this is actually a quote from him... but even if it were, sure, tactics are very important, no one is going to argue that.
---
Anyway, you want to know the REAL advice almost every GM will give you? Play tons of long OTB tournament games, read books, and study GM games. The idea that all you need is tactics, or all you need is openings, or all you need is [fill in the blank] is mostly talk from new players looking for shortcuts.
If you've ever been to a chess tournament though, minor sections are full of tactics. Intermediate less so. Open sections, where most of the players are over 2000 FIDE, can be very tactical. But majors? Solid, solid, solid, so Carlsen does have a point.
First of all, show me the source. Show me where Carlsen said to "mostly study tactics which is different from solving puzzles."
Secondly, it's not true that GM games are solid solid solid. There are plenty of creative and sharp players. Even at the very top, you had players like Nakamura playing KID and Dutch.
To repeat, <<<If you've ever been to a chess tournament though, minor sections are full of tactics. Intermediate less so. Open sections, where most of the players are over 2000 FIDE, can be very tactical. But majors? Solid, solid, solid, so Carlsen does have a point.>>>
Major sections are about < 2000.
I already addressed that.
But anyway, I dislike arguing on the forums. I'll leave you guys to have at it.
Also just like how magnus said , players below 2000 should mainly study tactics. Nakamura also said once that up untill 2200 the game is 95% tactics.
No....Ive heard Nak say "the game is decided", not the entire list of moves is 95%.. And he mixes up words. If I let my queen get captured and my opponent takes it, is that really a tactic? Maybe...but probably not. Its probably a strategic move. But since you dont know what strategy is, you have only 1 type of move and say 95%. Say its a blunder haha so the question is not answered directly. If you knew strategy 101, you would suspect strategy from the getgo. Like 1 second or less. But maybe you miss it...and doh! Probably thinking tactics! I hate those puzzles....thinking over all these tactics when the answer is strategic or positional.
...I've never actually had these tactics come up in a game...
Tactics flow from a superior position. If you don't know how to reach advantageous positions, you won't have the opportunity to play many tactical shots.
That's one of the truest things I've seen on these forums. People are often amazed at tactical combinations like Morphy's Opera game. The tactics are not the impressive part, the knight sacrifice that begins the combination in that game just begs to be made and I'm sure any intermediate player would find that if it was presented as a puzzle. The genius imo lies in getting to a position where the pieces are so well coordinated that such an attack is possible, not in carrying out the attack.
Or in simple terms, everything is connected with everything else. 
Strategy, positional thinking and tactics go hand in hand.
...I've never actually had these tactics come up in a game...
Tactics flow from a superior position. If you don't know how to reach advantageous positions, you won't have the opportunity to play many tactical shots.
That's one of the truest things I've seen on these forums. People are often amazed at tactical combinations like Morphy's Opera game. The tactics are not the impressive part, the knight sacrifice that begins the combination in that game just begs to be made and I'm sure any intermediate player would find that if it was presented as a puzzle. The genius imo lies in getting to a position where the pieces are so well coordinated that such an attack is possible, not in carrying out the attack.
Adolph Anderssen, one of the most brilliant combinative players of the 19th Century (he played the winning side of both "The Immortal Game" and "The Evergreen Game") was asked why he never managed to pull off that type of tactical brilliancy in his games against Paul Morphy. He simply replied "Morphy won't let me."
And a quote from Capablanca:
"Morphy's principal strength does not rest upon his power of combination but in his position play and his general style....Beginning with la Bourdonnais to the present, and including Lasker, we find that the greatest stylist has been Morphy. Whence the reason, although it might not be the only one, why he is generally considered the greatest of all." ~ José Raúl Capablanca
...I've never actually had these tactics come up in a game...
Tactics flow from a superior position. If you don't know how to reach advantageous positions, you won't have the opportunity to play many tactical shots.
That's one of the truest things I've seen on these forums. People are often amazed at tactical combinations like Morphy's Opera game. The tactics are not the impressive part, the knight sacrifice that begins the combination in that game just begs to be made and I'm sure any intermediate player would find that if it was presented as a puzzle. The genius imo lies in getting to a position where the pieces are so well coordinated that such an attack is possible, not in carrying out the attack.
That's where your point is wrong. An intermediate would find it if presented as a puzzle but not in an actual game, big difference.
Also just like how magnus said , players below 2000 should mainly study tactics. Nakamura also said once that up untill 2200 the game is 95% tactics.
Magnus and Hikaru both had master-level coaches, when they were under 2000.
Almost certainly, their coaches taught them much more than tactics alone.
They would've looked at countless games (both classic games, and games of their own), and would've discussed the ideas behind each move.
They would've talked, with their coaches, about whether or not these ideas made sense, based on the needs of each position, and they would've learned about practical alternatives.
Quite often, the moves discussed with coaches are positional in nature. Even at lower levels.
Players will say things like, "I thought the queenside would open up, so that's why I started moving my pieces toward that side of the board". Or, "I didn't want to exchange my strong bishop for their knight, because their knight didn't seem to be doing much at all ..." Or, "I wanted to lock the center, so I could start advancing on the kingside, without worrying about them having counterplay in the middle."
These aren't tactical conversations - they're strategic. And it's almost certainly it's the kind of stuff that both Magnus and Hikaru went over a lot, with their own coaches, when they were U-2000 players.
Of course tactics are vital, too. We definitely don't want to miss tactical opportunities, when they arise. But ... tactics aren't everything.
I am saying what is a fact... that magnus said that till 2000 all u need to do is to study tactics.... and that nakamura said that up until 2200 the game is 95% tactics.
What u are saying is just random, unprovable stuff since we don't know if they had coaches who trained them extensively in strategy... any coach who, instead of increasing their low rated students' visualization and calculation gives him strategical ideas is a bad bad coach.
Also just like how magnus said , players below 2000 should mainly study tactics. Nakamura also said once that up untill 2200 the game is 95% tactics.
No....Ive heard Nak say "the game is decided", not the entire list of moves is 95%.. And he mixes up words. If I let my queen get captured and my opponent takes it, is that really a tactic? Maybe...but probably not. Its probably a strategic move. But since you dont know what strategy is, you have only 1 type of move and say 95%. Say its a blunder haha so the question is not answered directly. If you knew strategy 101, you would suspect strategy from the getgo. Like 1 second or less. But maybe you miss it...and doh! Probably thinking tactics! I hate those puzzles....thinking over all these tactics when the answer is strategic or positional.
Well if you let your queen gets captured then u "missed" that he can capture your queen..
My point is, at below master level all one really needs to do is to not make blunders and he will be good to go. You don't need strong grasp of what to do in a position. You just need basic, very basic opening principles and that's it. You can keep on making "ok" moves and as long as u don't blunder, you will win
My point is, at below master level all one really needs to do is to not make blunders and he will be good to go. You don't need strong grasp of what to do in a position. You just need basic, very basic opening principles and that's it. You can keep on making "ok" moves and as long as u don't blunder, you will win
Then why are you only a 1700?
One point that you seem to overlook is that we are talking about Human beings, not engines... and in games between real people, bad positions tend to generate bad moves. Very few people continue to play as strongly when under serious pressure as they do when in a commanding position.
This is one of the reasons that tactics tend to flow from a superior position... the simple fact that accurate moves are easier to FIND when you are the one applying pressure, rather than being under pressure yourself.
Another obvious reason, of course, is the fact that winning moves only exist in winning positions. That's one of the things that MAKES them winning positions.
...I've never actually had these tactics come up in a game...
Tactics flow from a superior position. If you don't know how to reach advantageous positions, you won't have the opportunity to play many tactical shots.
That's one of the truest things I've seen on these forums. People are often amazed at tactical combinations like Morphy's Opera game. The tactics are not the impressive part, the knight sacrifice that begins the combination in that game just begs to be made and I'm sure any intermediate player would find that if it was presented as a puzzle. The genius imo lies in getting to a position where the pieces are so well coordinated that such an attack is possible, not in carrying out the attack.
Or in simple terms, everything is connected with everything else. Strategy, positional thinking and tactics go hand in hand.
That is completely wrong. "Tactics flow from a superior position" is a quote by a GM for GMs... it doesn't apply at all to anyone below masters. People who are not at the minimum level of skill are simply not good enough to take advantage of a "superior" position. This quote assumes that you already are good enough.
I often compare chess with gaming since they are so similar. For example in gaming you can give someone the strategically better "highground" position and it won't matter if his aim and combat is not good enough to make use of that position. Same is with chess, your position can strategically be winning but if you are missing stuff then it doesn't matter.
Please look up games of the world rapid championship, the lower board games. People who were rated 1800-2000(very few of them but they were there) were missing many moves and making tons of mistakes, the strength of their position doesn't matter... all that matters is who is it who will "stop making any more mistakes".
I can give u a strategically crushing position against magnus where his pieces can't move and you have a crushing attack(but no forced mate or anything) and u will still lose since u will just miss stuff which he wont'. Magnus even beat a GM by giving that GM 8 moves at the start... that's how little "superior" position matters if u are missing stuff
But we're not talking about the highest rated player in history on one side vs a scrub on the other side. We're talking about a level playing field.
And if you are seriously claiming that the better position gives no advantage below GM level, then all I can say is that you don't have even the slightest understanding of what you are talking about.
How long have you been playing chess? How much OTB tournament experience?
when ahead, trade pieces.
when behind, trade pawns.
🙂