Tactics just refers to calculation
Before you make every move, you need to calculate to make sure it isn't a blunder (minimally)
Hence the quote
Is Chess really 99% tactics?
Sort:
Tactics are simply one part of the game.
We study tactic only to defend self from our blunders and that we dont miss winning tactic maybe.
The two most important things in chess are a disciplined thinking system and endgame technique (especially rook endgames)
Fiveofswords wrote:
well in general i think you get a good position by understanding strategy. you usually calculate to avoid blunders. When you get enough experience you dont actually need to calculate much...i rarely do (mainly from laziness)
Yes...lets hear ir for lazy chess!
Lazy is also relative. It would be lazy of Carlsen to calculate 15 moves ahead whereas for a typical player it is strenuous hard work.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
Lazy is also relative. It would be lazy of Carlsen to calculate 15 moves ahead whereas for a typical player it is strenuous hard work.
Oh no...Im talking just plain lazy
Fiveofswords wrote:
like 99% of the time if you are in a position where some winning combination exists, you would also win with simple play. Its super rare to have a winning combination without a far superior position.
That pretty much sums it up right there.
NO chess is not 99% tactics...its 100% tactics. Computers have demonstrated that brute force trumps all and no matter how "ugly" and "anti-positional" a move looks, if it works tactically it is the correct idea.
zxb995511 wrote:
NO chess is not 99% tactics...its 100% tactics. Computers have demonstrated that brute force trumps all and no matter how "ugly" and "anti-positional" a move looks, if it works tactically it is the correct idea.
Computers are also terrible at openings. I would argue that the openings have to do with strategy, not tactics.
zxb995511 wrote:
NO chess is not 99% tactics...its 100% tactics. Computers have demonstrated that brute force trumps all and no matter how "ugly" and "anti-positional" a move looks, if it works tactically it is the correct idea.
Computers require an opening book, and are notoriously bad at end games.
PaullHutchh wrote:
Tactics become less relevant with longer time controls.
Actually it is the reverse. Less time means sloppier play.
I always understood a tactic to be the capture of a piece or the threat of capture, but I wouldn't know it from these answers. Tactics doesn't mean calculation, but calculation is needed to ensure the proper tactical move, especially where move order is critical. Trying to place a percentage on it amounts to pissing in the wind, since it always gets reduced to an opinion with nothing to back it up. Strategy is used to set up tactical operations, and tactics are used to set up strategic advantages.
Chess is 100% calculation
Joel Benjamin
Ok first off, I'm obviously not a grandmaster, or even an expert at chess.
I do question this quote however. I think that it was said as hyperbole and exaggeration, and that the actual number is probably more like 90%.
In many grandmaster games that I have viewed, I can remember a good number of moves that are made, especially during the openings, that are strategic in nature, having little to nothing to do with tactics. I would argue that even the opening move e4 is a strategic move, to gain a presence in the center. Many other opening moves are similar in nature.
I think 99% is hyperbole. I think the guy has a point, that chess is largely tactics. Often when someone wants to stress a point, they will exaggerate the truth, so as to be sure that people will take something from it.
For those who do not know, the guy who made the claim was Richard Teichmann, a chess master from the 1800's.