GM Grigoryan on the "Myth" of Solving Puzzles

they absolutely are irrelevant simply since games in that rating are decided by tactics, it's simple

@kartikeya_tiwari

I hope this will not sound as a provocation, but you can prove your claim. You can play as Black several (the more the better) rapid (blitz is of course more chaotic) games against players below 2000, after playing (by agreement) the moves nklristic posted. Then we can calculate your expected total score, based on ratings, and compare it with your actual total score. From that, we can see how much you are right or wrong. Seeking objectivity, players should not prepare to play that position and since ratings can vary a lot, we should use a rough estimation of the actual players' rating, like the mean between their highest and lowest value. You could make this challenge open to everyone, in a new thread.

Sure, that's a good challenge. However then the opposite would have to be proven too, anyone up for that?

This.

It could be done. I would, but I have played only 10 rapid games, so I think this is not enough to make my rating reliable. There is another problem: the games should be rated and I don't think many players would like to play that position as Black as you do, unless they are much stronger. If ratings are too different on average, the result will be less reliable.

It would have to be a lot of games to get an accurate estimate. So I am not sure it is practically feasible. And there is another problem as well. If 2 people play this position lets say 10 times in a row, in the end the one with a superior position would start to play it better, and it would probably affect the results.

So that thematic tournament with many players is probably a better idea, because there would be a lot of games, and not a single person would have to play many games, but it would be many games by different people. Of course, the difference in rating should be minuscule, so it doesn't affect the results. For instance the difference of 100 is bigger than you might think. Already +100 is expected to score around 6.5/10.

So ideally, the difference should probably be less than 25 in order for rating to not affect the results.

In any case, I really don't see how can anyone think that he would achieve roughly the same results as white and as black in that positions, unless you are still leaving pieces hanging in every game. Even if you don't know much, black will have a hard time playing that. It is like sprinting with some weights as opposed to regular running.

If many players play both sides in such a tournament there could be a psychological factor: I think that most players agree that the position is clearly worse for Black and that could affect their play. Black must be confident that his or her position gives them the same chances as ever. One player as Black should play against many different players (not in simul, of course ).

Well, I've given one simple info as well.

I win 55% of my games as white, while I win 49% as black. And most people (lower rated included) have at least somewhat better statistics as white, where the difference is a single tempo. So even such a minuscule thing makes some difference (probably a psychological thing mostly) if you take a lot of games into account.

So in a game such as the above, the results should point clearly towards white more often than not.

imo saying that a good position doesn’t matter is similar to this hypothetical:

Say you have a bag with five green marbles and two red marbles. And you say that because you drew a red marble and a green marble then it must mean that it’s equally likely to grab a certain color.

Sure, the number of red marbles increases as you go down the rating ladder… but most people rated above 1000 no longer randomly hang their pieces and therefore will have more green marbles.

white starts with the initiative, but black starts with more information about the opponent's plans.  of course, white is preferable & begins the game with a slight advantage, but similarly to tennis it's always possible to mess up your serve or mishandle the return.

interestingly, i have more wins & fewer draws/losses playing as black.

Sure, there will be examples like this one, but in general white scores slightly better, even on lower levels. The difference is not great, it can't be because it is a single tempo, but it is still somewhat visible.

And if that is visible even on lower levels, then something more concrete such as an objectively better position will show even more, if you create a large enough pool of games.

Strategy isn't harmful, when applied correctly. A greater understanding of a position's needs would improve one's tactical results, not harm them.

What you're talking about is "making an uncertain, uninformed plan", which of course would prove disastrous, if the plan fails tactically.

But that's not what positional understanding is about.

When you learn about proper positional play (and the strategies that arise from understanding a position's needs), you don't make random plans ... you learn to let the position guide you toward the most logical plans.

The reason strategy doesn't work for a lot of players is because they haven't properly learned how to read a position. So of course their plans didn't work ... because they were making plans, on their own, without knowing what the position needs.

This is actually an argument for more strategic learning, not less of it.

Imagine: someone is trying to fix a vehicle's engine, without knowing what they're doing ... and then, when the maintenance fails, they declare universally that "engine maintenance doesn't work!"

No - engine maintenance does work ... but a person needs to know what they're doing, first.

The unfortunate part is: learning good positional play (and strategy) is more difficult than simply solving tactics puzzles online. This is why tactics are so popular, because they're readily available, and require very few moving parts at all. All you need is a position with a forced tactical sequence. Now: find it.

But learning how to properly read a position, and learning how to identify its needs, on the other hand, usually requires a stronger, more experienced player to act as one's guide (or a coach). And it usually involves a lot of discussion, and exploring of various ideas.

It's a much more involved process, that can't be replicated in the same way that tactical learning can.

Some dedicated players can reach a high level of positional understanding through study of master games, and by reading books on the subject ... but they're in the minority. Most players simply don't enjoy studying enough to tolerate this kind of work (even though it can be very beneficial).

Especially when tactics puzzles are more "fun", and filled with more immediate gratification ...

Yes, that's the problem, so a less unfavourable evaluation would be better for a search in databases, but the advantage would be smaller, so if for a strong player it could be make little difference (because he knows better how to convert advantages), for weaker players that could not be the case. One should search for games with that advantage, but the result might be biased, because if the weaker side has not resigned yet, he might have some sort of compensation, like a messy position or the other part in zeitnot, not easy to determine.

Of course, we can say that if White, at all levels, makes more than 50% of the points with just a tempo, he would do much better in that position, but kartikeya_tiwari could say instead that the advantage does not scale well for weak players.

Too complicated, so I stick with my previous idea: if kartikeya_tiwari is so confident, he can challenge every player with his mean rating +/- 100 to beat him as Black in that position and we shall see. He will find a lot of players happy to play for rating in that position (and there must be something at stake). If one does the opposite ("I take White, try to resist me"), it may be taken as a rude way to make points, considering this thing of the Players League too.

Bro... you are talking to 1700-1800 players... we can't see 2 moves ahead if our lives depended on it....

Ok let me explain.. the reason why YOU hold strategy in such high regard is because of this... this is your thought process during a game in an unfamiliar positon.. you select candidate moves, then you try to look ahead opponent's replies, then u see the final position of your plan and if you think that it's good then u proceed with your plan..

Lower rated players can't see any threats which opponent might have so how do you expect us to create any plans? Sure, bolting with the f pawn and then striking the center might seem like a good plan but we are not good enough to look ahead that if we move the f pawn then Queen will check and if we block then we will lose the b pawn(for example) as we can't take back because of some other stuff...   You, good sir, will actually see this and then change your plan or defend the b pawn first, we can't see that stuff so there is no point in playing strategically when we are missing moves...

I hope u see the point. To make a plan one must actually look ahead and visualize counter plans, threats and attacks or possible combinations from their opponent and lower rated players don't see any of that.  That's why the aim should be to first constantly develop a very sharp tactical eye or develop the ability to visualize and anticipate +look ahead moves... only when a person is potent with that can he actually go ahead with the next step of making plans.. you need a solid base.

This is what Ben finegold always says and he is 100% correct... he says that people aren't good at chess for simple reasons... they just don't see ahead... planning is useless for people like us

I can't make you understand in more clear words, i hope i made my point clear.

tactics form the foundation that creates a sound approach to chess.  without a comprehensive knowledge of the fundamental interplay between the pieces the entire structure on the board will crumble during construction.

every 'positional' move must be tactically checked for soundness before being played.  until such time as a player is able to visualize & assess positions accurately several moves ahead, 'planning a strategy' loses all meaning & would most likely be counter-productive if attempted due to the inevitable blunders.

if you minimize instances of dropping pieces & getting mated for the reason that 'you didn't see it', that alone will dramatically improve your results & pave the path forward to a deeper understanding of the game.

meanwhile, the analytical training cannot fail to progressively strengthen your ability to see further ahead & properly evaluate candidate moves, enabling more comprehensive plans to be devised than would otherwise be possible.

It’s not that specific man. It’s more like… I have this pawn structure which points towards my opponents king. Therefore I should attack on the kingside. I don’t have enough pieces, so I’ll need to move my pieces towards his king. And I shouldn’t castle queenside because my opponent will be attacking there. The calculation comes in when you need to make sure that you don’t hang a piece or five while carrying out the vague outline of a plan.

i'm inclined to view attacking where you have more space, with superior force, while keeping your king safe, as tactical concerns.

@kartikeya_tiwari, I agree with you that strategy can get complex, and can involve a lot of tactical decisions.

But positional understanding can start at a much lower level, too. And it can be done without needing much tactical vision.

Here's a position that was reached, in a friendly game, with a player whom I occasionally analyze with.

It was white's move, and he was looking for what to play. He ended up playing this:

Why did he play that? Because he wanted to develop his queen bishop. And the only way he could see to do that, in this position, was to put his bishop on b2. Seems logical.

But a quick glance at the position should tell a player that the bishop has a rather bleak future on b2, due to white's center pawns being locked on d4+e5.

I explained to him a basic positional idea: that, when one has fixed central pawns, we can view the central pawn chains as "arrows", guiding each player on which side of the board they should be playing on.

White's pawns point toward black's kingside - so that's the side that white should be moving his pieces (and pawns) toward. Especially since black no longer has Nf6 as a defensive resource - which makes the kingside even more vulnerable to attack.

Black's central pawns, meanwhile, point in the opposite direction - so that's the side that black should be moving his pieces toward.

These are positional ideas - basic strategical guides- that require little to no calculation at all ... yet they would still guide the player toward making logical moves that are in harmony with the position.

And this is the kind of stuff that players should be striving to grasp - learning to let the position guide their moves - along with whatever they do to improve their tactics, in the meantime.

+1

Btw custom position challenges are unrated no matter what I believe

I thought only a player for Black and different ones (one try each) for White, but I can see your point and agree. To add to your argument, it has already been said that Leela, set at 1 node (this prevents calculations completely) plays at master level. To be honest, I think that it has some basic tactical knowledge, so maybe it can see simple forks, skewers and pins "at a glance"; but try to make it find the correct moves in a puzzle suited for people rated 1600 OTB: it fails miserably most of the times!

Since it is truly unbelievable that one would be a master just avoiding forks and pins, the theory that strategy cannot be useful until you reach that level is clearly debunked.

GM Sadler said that he didn't work much on his evaluation ability during his career, but studying openings (not just memorizing variations), endgames and typical middlegame positions does improve one's strategic ability. So if a player with normal talent waits to be a master to do so, he might never get there.