Strategy arises when there is no immediate tactics to apply. So you have to improve your position, make the placement of your pieces superior to that of the opponent pieces. Emphasise on your enemy's weakenesses, try to restrict your opponents piece activity and gain space, tempo etc. and by these positional strategic moves you'll more than likely get an advantageous and superior position where tactics arise and you'll have no trouble winning.
Moves, tactics, strategy - where does one end and the next begin?
Sort:
I would also suggest that you try the chess mentor lessons on stategy every day. As you are a non paid member like me, you'll only get one lesson per day but you'll improve your strategic thinking slowly but surely. Or if you can afford buying a premium membership, that's worth it.
Dec 13, 2015
0
#4
I admit I have a hard time understanding the meaning of strategy. On the way to the club do I show up 15 mins late? Is that strategy? Or my opponents pet opening is the Sicilian as black, so I play d4? Is that strategy. Chess is 99% tactics, so what I recommend is find openings that utilize your strengths and do tactics training. The idea is to mold your plan around winning exchanges and weaken the opponents position. Strategy is the all encompassing view of long term advantage.
Chess is not 100% tactics. Against low rated opponents, some cheap tactics would work. But when facing a stronger opponent your two or three move combos would be laughed at and you'll understand chess is not 99% freaking tactics!
Dec 13, 2015
0
#6
Not claiming I know everything. What I mean to say is that when developing a plan in the middle game it's best to seek some type of winning tactic and exploit.
tactics is winning material. statergy is not. that is , in the eyes of a medicero player, move untill your opponents makes a miskate.
but in the eyes of the master it is slowly inproving you position.
tjepie wrote:
+1
tactics is winning material. statergy is not. that is , in the eyes of a medicero player, move untill your opponents makes a miskate.
but in the eyes of the master it is slowly inproving you position.
Many thanks for some illuminating comments. One comment on them that does occur to me is that the better or subtler the tactic, the closer it approaches to strategy. My tactics seldom involve more than 2 pieces and I've probably only made 2 or 3 queen sacrifices in my life. I guess a lot has to do with one's mindset. Anyway, some food for thought. Again, thanks.
Dec 13, 2015
0
#11
Tactics are forcing moves, they don't necessarily win material. You can execute tactics to gain a positional advantage like doubling pawns or controlling an open file.
Dec 13, 2015
0
#12
I didn't know any strategy until ~1600. Just tried to keep pieces active while looking for tactics. Well, other than extremely basic things like knight outposts, doubled pawns, rooks on open files, etc.
By the way, everyone, there are strategy books... maybe people these days don't want to bother with anything harder than a 1.5 page pdf file...
Read the reviews and find something you like.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Middlegame-Features-Algebraic-Edition/dp/1880673959
http://www.amazon.com/The-Middlegame-Book-Subjective-Algebraic/dp/1880673967
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Chess-Strategy-Ludek-Pachman/dp/0486202909
http://www.amazon.com/Simple-Chess-Algebraic-Edition-Dover/dp/0486424200
http://www.amazon.com/The-Amateurs-Mind-Turning-Misconceptions/dp/1890085022
http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Chess-Strategies-Everyman/dp/1857443853
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Chess-Move-John-Nunn/dp/1901983412
0110001101101000 wrote:
Tactics are forcing moves, they don't necessarily win material. You can execute tactics to gain a positional advantage like doubling pawns or controlling an open file.
That's my take too. A few years ago I ran into this Kramnik quote about Karpov which opened my eyes to a side of the tactics vs strategy question which hadn't occurred to me before.
Interviewer – To add some “human qualities”, what were Karpov’s weak points?
Kramnik – I think he did not pay attention to strategy. As I have already told, he easily forgot about the things that had happened on the board. Probably, he did not have a sufficiently deep strategic thread of the play. Karpov is a chess player of a great number of short, two to three move combinations: he transferred his knight, seized the space, weakened a pawn . In my view, he was not a strategic player by nature.
Although thoughtless or random moves aren't worth calling tactical, all others, whether weak or strong, pretty much by definition are. And so, even though I'm an extremely mediocre player, I suppose I qualify as able to play tactically. But I haven't the faintest idea how to aim at playing strategically or where the difference lies. Can anyone explain that difference and suggests how to change one's own approach